Court Opinion

ID: 9631839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:52:04.280745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:02.166537
License: Public Domain

WOLFE, Chief Justice
(concurring).
I concur. In my opinion this case overrules State, by State Road Comm. v. District Court, Fourth Judicial District, 94 Utah 384, 78 P. 2d 502, at least in its spirit and reasoning. Whilst that case did not involve a prayer for money damages for alleged consequential injury but was an action to restrain the State Road Commission, the case proceeded on the theory that the Road Commission could not be restrained by the commissioners personally could be restrained if they threatened to damage a property owner consequentially and not by a direct taking, unless they first paid for the consequential damages which they would cause.
In a long and carefully considered dissent, I registered opposition to this view because it was my theory that neither *332the Road Commission nor the individual commissioners could be restrained from inflicting consequential damages, but only from a direct taking without condemnation and this on the theory that they would then be trespassing and acting as individuals and without legislative authority. In that opnion, the matter of compensation by the legislature on approval of a claim to the Board of Examiners as substantive due process in all its ramifications was also discussed at length. After the expenditure of the labor which I put on that opinion, I see no need to do anything else but to refer the reader to it for my views. My opinion is a complete answer to the position of the respondents in this case.