McRae v. Jackson, No. 13460
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | CALLISTER |
| Citation | 526 P.2d 1190 |
| Parties | Barbara McRAE and Sumner J. Hatch, guardians ad litem for Kerrie McRae and Michael Bret Hatch, minors, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Raymond A. JACKSON, as Commissioner in the Department of Public Safety for the State of Utah, and Darrell H. Josie, Director of Drivers Education in the Board of Education, one of the subsidiary divisions of the Department of Public Safety for the State of Utah, Defendants and Appellants. |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 13460 |
Page 1190
Kerrie McRae and Michael Bret Hatch, minors,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.
Raymond A. JACKSON, as Commissioner in the Department of
Public Safety for the State of Utah, and Darrell H. Josie,
Director of Drivers Education in the Board of Education, one
of the subsidiary divisions of the Department of Public
Safety for the State of Utah, Defendants and Appellants.
Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., Robert B. Hansen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.
Robert M. McRae, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs and respondents.
CALLISTER, Chief Justice:
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 41--2--5, U.C.A.1953, the Department of Public Safety, Raymond A. Jackson, Commissioner, adopted Rules and Regulations for Commercial and Private Driver Education Schools, effective July 1, 1967. Part E(1) thereof in effect prohibited commercial and private education to persons under the age of 17 years. However, a high school student may take a driver education course furnished by the school and receive a driver's license upon attaining the age of 16.
Plaintiff minors, through their guardians ad litem, commenced an action in the nature of an extraordinary writ testing the validity of the Department's regulation as it pertained to them. 1 They petitioned the court for an order to show cause as to why they should not be permitted to take a private
Page 1191
driver education course and become eligible to receive their driver's license upon the same terms and conditions applicable to those who availed themselves of the public-sponsored instruction.After a hearing, the trial court entered its judgment declaring regulations (Part E(1)) to be null and void as being contrary to the statutes of this state.
Defendants appealed this decision and have filed a brief in support thereof. The plaintiffs have not filed a brief but have advised the court, by letter, that a brief is not necessary inasmuch as the case is moot-they now having received their driver's licenses. 2
Our main concern is whether or not the case is moot and, if so whether this court should retain jurisdiction and entertain the appeal.
Although no Utah case precisely in point has been found, 3 the general principle, to which we adhere, is stated in 5 Am.Jur.2d., Appeal and Error, § 761:
The function of appellate courts, like that of courts generally, is not to give opinions on merely abstract or theoretical matters, but only to decide actual controversies injuriously affecting the rights of some...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Widdison v. State, No. 20161043
...as to the validity or construction of a statute, or the propriety of administrative rulings" frequently raise issues of public concern. 526 P.2d 1190, 1191 (Utah 1974), overruled on other grounds by Utah Transit Auth. v. Local 382 of Amalgamated Transit Union, 2012 UT 75, 289 P.3d 582; see ......
-
Widdison v. State, 20161043
...or construction of a statute, or the propriety of administrative rulings" frequently raise issues of public concern. 489 P.3d 163 526 P.2d 1190, 1191 (Utah 1974), overruled on other grounds by Utah Transit Auth. v. Local 382 of Amalgamated Transit Union , 2012 UT 75, 289 P.3d 582 ; see also......
-
Stewart v. Utah Public Service Com'n, 910405
...veto cleared the way for the Commission to order the traditional rate regulation which they seek. As we explained in McRae v. Jackson, 526 P.2d 1190 (Utah 1974), "The function of appellate courts, like that of courts generally, is not to give opinions on merely abstract or theoretical matte......
-
Richards v. Baum, No. 940160
...1982). Where the issues that were before the trial court no longer exist, the appellate court will not review the case. McRae v. Jackson, 526 P.2d 1190, 1191 (Utah 1974); Mikkelsen v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 22 Utah 2d 438, 439-40, 455 P.2d 27, 27 (1969). "An appeal is moot if during the pen......
-
Widdison v. State, 20161043
...or construction of a statute, or the propriety of administrative rulings" frequently raise issues of public concern. 489 P.3d 163 526 P.2d 1190, 1191 (Utah 1974), overruled on other grounds by Utah Transit Auth. v. Local 382 of Amalgamated Transit Union , 2012 UT 75, 289 P.3d 582 ; see also......
-
Stewart v. Utah Public Service Com'n, 910405
...veto cleared the way for the Commission to order the traditional rate regulation which they seek. As we explained in McRae v. Jackson, 526 P.2d 1190 (Utah 1974), "The function of appellate courts, like that of courts generally, is not to give opinions on merely abstract or theoretical matte......
-
Widdison v. State, 20161043
...as to the validity or construction of a statute, or the propriety of administrative rulings" frequently raise issues of public concern. 526 P.2d 1190, 1191 (Utah 1974), overruled on other grounds by Utah Transit Auth. v. Local 382 of Amalgamated Transit Union, 2012 UT 75, 289 P.3d 582; see ......
-
Richards v. Baum, 940160
...1982). Where the issues that were before the trial court no longer exist, the appellate court will not review the case. McRae v. Jackson, 526 P.2d 1190, 1191 (Utah 1974); Mikkelsen v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 22 Utah 2d 438, 439-40, 455 P.2d 27, 27 (1969). "An appeal is moot if during the pen......