*1 5Q5 P.2d Lylе MANNING,for himself and in behalf of situated, similarly
all others Plain- Appellant, tiff and COUNTY,Utah, al.,
SEVIER et Respondents. Defendants and
No. 13444.
Supreme Court Utah.
Dec. City,
Boyle, Lake defendants-re- Salt spondents.
TUCKETT, Justice: declaratory judg- This is an action for *2 injunctive regarding ment and relief validity and issuance of authorization City purpose County for the of and bonds Richfield, constructing of a at Utah. by adopted
A was Sevier resolution 14, 1972, County February which called on special a election held in bond to be County purpose authorizing is- for of County. prop- suance of bonds osition of elec- was contained in a notice tion, provided as and the form of ballot follows: Obligation Shall General Bonds оf Utah, County, aggregate Sevier of Hundred principal amount Three Thirty-Five ($335,- Thousand Dollars rates 000), bearing interest at rate or per percent (7%) exceed -seven annum, in not payable and due and twenty years from the to exceed (20) bonds, date of said be issuеd sold defraying for all purpose of or a part acquiring the cost of land and of Waldo, Jr., Ockey, H. R. Ronald J. County constructing Hospital, the same Waldo, Jones, McDonough, & Holbrook operated by The Church Jesus City, plaintiff-appellant. Lake for Salt Latter-day by a cor- Saints or Christ Mclff, Chamberlain, it, poration entity K. L. of Olsen Ken controlled Chamberlain, Richfield, R. & Richard care purposes providing McConkie, Kirton, Boyer County & others Boyle, of the residents of race, creed, regardless color or reli- (b) At the end of thе gious may, option affiliation? term the Lessors at their and with the written consent of Health 14, 1972, By an election held March Services, right, transfer all of their title majority County ap- of electors of Sevier Hospital, and interest in the New includ- proved the simi- of said A issuancе bonds. ing improve- property the real City adopted by lar resolution was thereto, and, ments to Health Services Richfield, Utah, pursuant Council of event, such Health not obli- Services is special at thereto a bond election held gated any payment to make to the Les- majority qualified which a electors sors or any part reimbursement obligation issuing general voted favor of City funds County contributed City $100,000, bonds of the in the sum of acquisition of land and construc- defraying acquiring to assist in cost Hospital. tion equipping New construсting a site and a new planned hospital herein as referred to responsi- Health (c) Services will be the New owned will be acquisition ble for the and maintenance as tenants common. of all licenses for the New required Corporation Health of The Plоspital ordinary expenses and for the *3 Latter-Day Christ Church premises, except maintaining the that Jesus of the total Saints will contribute one third necessary re- Lessors will be liable for the acquisition cost of and construction of the pairs in the structural members is a Corporation hospital. Health Services II building and all and Class Class I nonprofit corporation owned equipment. controlled the Church. ‡ ‡
‡ ;{i agreement an between Pursuant to sole and (e) Health will have Services City as lessors and Health County and of the leasеd and control exclusive use operation of the premises and of the latter Corporation lessee the Services Hospital and exclusive and will have sole operate the manage and undertake to will gov- right designate members to the leаse facility. pertinent parts of Hospital, save New erning board of the follows: are substance member who shall except for one be leased Hospital will (a)The New County Com- Board of designated rental of at a $1.00 Health Services missioners. years, рer year a term of 25 will suc- Health (f) for three renewals with automatic from profits derived right to retain ceeding 25-year periods. any resulting sion, specific and will bear losses from and that lease entered operation Hospital. County City New into between thе as les- sors and the Health Services does not vio- ‡ ‡ >{: ‡ ^ statutory any late or con- State or Federal above,,there In addition to the provisions. judgment stitutional From the quality sions that the availability or care plaintiff entered favor of the defendants way raсe, shall in no to relate creed col- appeal. brought has here the case on or, quality same being of care available plaintiff seeks a with directions to reversal everyone without or discrimi- distinction enter de- judgment court to a district ; physicians, employees, nation that claring the authorization and issuance shall and other technicians not be nurses bonds unconstitutional persons limited to who are members of and void. faith;
Latter-Day there will he Saints plaintiff’s point ap first chapels religious no sеt or other rooms peal construction, op that the lease and is no aside at the and there will be eration of the violates New religious symbols plaques contained of the First Amendment United therein; name of the pertinent part which Constitution a referеnce to reli- not contain as follows: denomination; proselyting gious of litera- any religious sect or distribution shall make no law ture, brochures, symbols, or books, other prohibit- religion, or an establishment of proselyt- thereof; . relating being ing activities the free exеrcise ing in said shall be nature applicable to provision is made State This Amendment. by the Fourteenth action trial had in the district After a Supreme has for- Court United States against court, issues that court found the determining applied in a test mulated defend- in favor of the plaintiff Ac- proposed State whether statute obliga- general that the ants concluded establishment pursuant to the tion does violate issued tion bonds to be may be That rule above set out. clause to the electorate proposition submitted First, *4 must thе statute opera- stated as follows: lawful, ownership and that the were second, purpose; legislative a secular function hospital public tion of be one must principal effect contemplated hos- its the lease of religion; inhibits nor advances neither corporation controlled private pital to “an foster must not finally, the statute any State not a violation a church entanglement with government excessive statutory constitutional Federal
309 adopted by Coun plan us that the appear to religion.”1 It would hospital provide ty to establish a and to es- bodies in the plan adopted by public the inhabitants of hospital medical care for operation of a tablishment and religious carefully excessive area avoided that test. meets are of entanglements. We urges point two plaintiff’s proscrip plan does violate that the operation of proposed establishment tions of Utah Constitution.2 I, by Article prohibited 4, Utah State Section the va with Having generally dealt provides as fоllows: whereby Health plan lidity of the operate the New undertakes to shall conscience never rights of direct City, we now County and for the make no shall infringed. be The State the lease provision of to one our attention of reli- an establishment law fol рart provides agreement which free exercise prohibiting the gion or lows : re- thereof; test shall religious re- any foregoing automatic office qualification 12. quired as a at any notwithstanding, Lessor at any vote newals public trust or for years, of 25 incom- initial lease term election; any person be end of the nor shall juror account petent as a witness or is in that it upon a determination the absence thereof. religious belief or may in citizenry, its interest of the best be no union of Church There shall pro- having of Lеssee’s consideration State, any church dominate nor shall Les- care to the citizens vided health No its with functions. or interfere State Les- sor, the written consent of and with appro- property public money or title right, see, of Lessor’s transfer facility, in- religious applied to priated for or and interest im- and all property instruction, cluding the real or for worship, exercise Lessee, latter thereto, provements support any ecclesiastical estab- thereof. becoming the sole owner at оnce property qualification lishment. No vote, any person to required of shall be City of the County and the giftA office, in this estab- except provided or hold constructed hospital which was moneys tax public lished the use Constitution. Pioneers, Daughters 236, 114 Allen, 2. Thomas v. Utаh 392 1. of Education v. U.S. Board 108, 1923, 1060; 197 P.2d Lemon 20 L.Ed.2d 88 S.Ct. 2105, Kurtzman, 602, 29 L. 91 S.Ct. U.S. 734, McNair, 745; 413 U.S. Hunt v. Ed.2d L.Ed.2d 923. S.Ct. *5 mentioned, the in and vi- the above plainly be unconstitutional and 12 of would the of with both matter is remanded directions the establishment clauses olation of finding and Constitutions.3 its the Federal and State district court to amend judgment respect, in the other that other the have considered We provisions judgment affirmed. are not plaintiff do by the but points raised No costs awarded. in one necessary it to discuss each
deem except his contention detail to comment CALLISTER, HENRIOD, J., J., and C. to failed that 'City concur. comply provisions of Sections with the that seem It would 10-8-92 17—5—45. by the only provisions intended
these were CROCKETT, (concurring, but Justice: political subdivisions legislature apply to to adding comments). joint administra engaged who agreement in I am with the deci- court’s joint
tion, operation maintenance of sion, but I separate desire to record these plan we are here consider pertaining comments thereto. admin contemplate not actual ing does City and istration It seems to me that this be case should County. uрon decided Constitution and laws the state of It is to noted that Utah. are of the We 4, provision I, of the Section Article providing its termi- of the lease sions which our decision in- party are sufficient nation either quotes, is express more articulate and provisions compliance with sure assuring religious liberty prohibiting with dealing those especially lease and discrimination, or church interference with provides The lease entanglements. church private public rights, generality than the County shall representative of the thаt one of the First Amendment the U. S. Con- a member board of the stitution. sufficient general oversight should be protect and Coun- the interests of important foregoing, More than the ty public generally. and the I am accord with idea that is af- applicable the court below First Amendment is made judgment provisions action the Fourteenth Amend- Section State except firmed as to 872, 1281; Richardson, Wilson, 268, Tilton v. 403 U.S. 3. Lane v. 307 U.S. 59 S.Ct. L.Ed. 2091, 29 L.Ed.2d 790. S.Ct.
3H prerogatives responsi- Su- their States the United It is true that ment. bilities, sharper with seen in focus it is when this made statement preme Court hаs language reflected that First of the assured rights respect to various Rights) Amendment itself is but an interdiction (Bill of first ten amendments e., “Congress,” against of liberties i. system part of the society. make law an the free establish- he assured should *6 religion, ment of prohibiting indeed. the free language sounding is fine That thereof”; in- realizing exercise and in how problems such as applied to But beyond intent, express implied, far which one, specious pretext it is but stant clearly de- of the framers defeating it has been distorted and has been used prolifеrated. desirability amendments, The of maintain- intent those clared ing a balance sovereignties itself arrogating to between judiciary the federal the states and by the the federal government never intended powers which were one of the essential balаnces in Ameri- our founding fathers. system can government pointed out those be remembered It should Hughes Chief ad- Evans in an Justice approved adopted and amendments were all joint dress to the session of fears that because of package; in one Sеsqui-Centennial Commemoration, 4th government, overpowerful federal of an March, day of 1939.1 includ- proved they (now justified) so well Turning to perhaps matter: is another It precautionary provisions: ed these point not amiss for the out that Amendment IX: enumeration if thе (County lessor elects to City) Constitution, rights, of certain transfer (Health lessee deny disparage not be construed to it Services) might be an unconstitutional people. others retained However, it is transaction. also to be not- happen ed that after 25 this could not until powers not dele- X: Amendment years; then, and that even whether such by the gated to the Consti- United may transfer would be unconstitutional States, tution, by it prohibited nor depend upon then well circumstances which respectively, are reserved to the States exist, arrangements would what people. to the is upon by parties. But there agreed process impropriety constitutionality this present issue as to need not continuously on, divesting the transaction. We going future such pp. Reported Bloom, Sol in: edited Formation The Union Under 675-6. anticipate unconstitutional and should
conduct, contrary. but
ELLETT, ex- in the views concurs J., concurring opinion
pressed in the
CROCKETT, J.
HENRIOD, ex- J., the views concurs concurring opinion of
pressed in para-
CROCKETT, J., except for the last
graph. P.2d Appellant,
Dudley AMOSS,Plaintiff and M. *7 BENNION, Es-
Don W. Administrator of Jr., Bennion, al., et tate of Heber Respondents. Defendants and BENNION, Es
Don Executor of the Weiler Jr., al., Bennion, of Heber tate et Respondents, Plaintiffs and moss,
Dudley Diana M.A M.AMOSSand wife, Appellants. his Defendants and
No. 13084.
Supreme Court of Utah.
Dec.