Court Opinion

ID: 9577482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:35:21.510733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:39.949595
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(dissenting) :
I dissent. I think it ill-advised and unnecessary, particularly under the facts shown in this case, to put such a restrictive interpretation of the statutes referred to in the main opinion, either those relating to the offense charged, or to the grant of powers to the city. Notwithstanding the admittedly correct proposition that cities derive their powers from statute, it is my opinion that the law is and ought to be that they have those powers expressly granted, and also such powers as are reasonably and necessarily implied in order to properly function and carry out their responsibilities to the citizenry. See Ritholz v. City of Salt Lake, 3 Utah 2d 385, 284 P.2d 702 (1955); *347Stevenson v. Salt Lake City Corporation, 7 Utah 2d 28, 317 P.2d 597 (1957); and 1 Dillon, Municipal Corporations, 5th Ed., Sec. 237. To avoid repetition I refer to my dissenting opinions- in the cases of Salt Lake City v. Davison, footnote 1, main opinion, and Nasfell v. Ogden, footnote 3, main opinion.