 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Laney v. Fairview City8/9/2002
ticle I, section 11, is consistent with these general purposes. More importantly, however, we should rely on our own state history and precedent to determine the purpose and meaning of article I, section 11's protection. See David Schuman, The Right to a Remedy, 65 Temp. L. Rev. 1197, 1220 (1992) (" he best interpretation of the remedy guarantee in one state may differ radically from the best interpretation in another state, even when the wording of the two provisions is identical."). " text's meaning cannot be separated from its speaker, its audience, its genre - from its context." Id. (citing Stanley Fish, Working on the Chain Gang: Interpretation in Law and Literature, 60 Tex. L. Rev. 551 (1982)). Our inquiry should focus on what the open courts provision means in our own constitution. See Schuman, 65 Temp. L. Rev. at 1220 (" he appropriate inquiry is not, 'What does the remedy guarantee mean?,' but 'What does the remedy guarantee mean in the constitution of State X?'").
Although some states with open courts provisions have construed them to guarantee only procedural rights and court access, such a construction has never been accepted in Utah. Article I, section 11's constitutional guarantee has been interpreted to protect substantive rights to remedies throughout our state's history. The open courts provision was adopted, as part of the original Constitution itself, at the end of the nineteenth century, during a period when abuse had generated concern and distrust of the legislative branch in numerous states. Craftsman, 1999 UT 18 at 50, 974 P.2d 1194 (Stewart, J., concurring). That abuse included misuse of political influence by railroads and other corporate interests, who convinced state legislators to favor private interests through legislative enactments insulating them from the general laws. Id. (citing Perkins v. Northeastern Log Homes, 808 S.W.2d 809, 811-12 (Ky. 1991); Kenyon v. Hammer, 688 P.2d 961, 971-73 n.9 (Ariz. 1984) to demonstrate origin of open courts provisions and industrial history of certain states around the turn of the century). To prevent this type of political abuse, "the Framers, relying on legal principles that were centuries old, included constitutional protections against such evils." Id.
Utah's constitution, in fact, contains numerous provisions reflecting an intent to limit legislative power and prevent special interest abuse. In addition to basic provisions for due process, uniform operation of the laws, and equality in civil and political rights, we find in the Utah Constitution the following sections, clearly motivated by a wariness of unlimited legislative power:
1. Article I, section 23
"No law shall be passed granting irrevocably any franchise, privilege or immunity."
2. Article VI, section 22 (single-subject rule)
"Except general appropriation bills and bills for the codification and general revision of laws, no bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title."
3. Article VI, section 26
"No private or special law shall be enacted where a general law can be applicable."
4. Article VI, section 28
"The Legislature shall not delegate to any special commission, private corporation or association any power to make, supervise or interfere with any municipal improvement, money, property or effects; . . . to levy taxes, to select a capitol site, or to perform any municipal functions."
5. Article VII, section 29
"The Legislature shall not authorize the state, or any county, city, town, township, district or other political subdivision of the State to lend its cred
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|