Sennott v. Hawksley, 420-A
| Citation | 241 A.2d 286,103 R.I. 730 |
| Decision Date | 25 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 420-A,420-A |
| Parties | Donald M. SENNOTT v. Raymond H. HAWKSLEY, General Treasurer, et al. ppeal. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island |
This civil action was brought to enjoin the general treasurer, the state controller, the secretary of state, and the members of the public information committee of the constitutional convention from making any expenditure of funds appropriated for the conduct of the constitutional convention to publish and disseminate information relating to a proposed constitution to be submitted to the people in a referendum on April 16, 1968. The expenditures sought to be enjoined are purportedly authorized by two resolutions adopted by the constitutional convention on March 25, 1968. The superior court, after a hearing, granted injunctive relief as prayed, and from that judgment the respondents prosecuted an appeal to this court. 1
In this court respondents raised the question whether the superior court has jurisdiction to enjoin an agency of the state at the suit of an individual taxpayer. There is a considerable conflict among the authorities as to whether a taxpayer, acting in his individual capacity, may maintain a suit to enjoin a state agency. We are not aware that this court has specifically passed upon the question up to now. It is clear, however, that courts in many jurisdictions uphold the right of a taxpayer, acting in his individual capacity, to maintain such a suit against a state agency. Others, however, upon considerations of public policy will not permit interference with state agencies by a taxpayer upon a mere showing that he will be affected in the same way and along with other taxpayers by an alleged invalid expenditure of state funds. See Higgins v. Green, 56 R.I. 330, 185 A. 686.
In deciding which of these views this court should follow, we would establish an important rule of law, a matter that should not be undertaken lightly. The time element alone that was involved here made us reluctant to consider the soundness of these conflicting views and to choose between them. It was clear that had we indulged in any extended consideration of the merits of the conflicting views, we would in all likelihood have so delayed a decision on the issues in this case that the basic question presented would have been rendered moot. In the light of these circumstances and because there was a substantial public interest in the adoption or rejection of a new constitution, we felt warranted, without first resolving the standing question, to determine whether, in enacting the pertinent resolutions, the constitutional convention acted within its authority.
We turned then to consider the convention's resolution purporting to authorize one of its standing committees to conduct a program of public education, which is identified as Resolution No. 49. This resolution provides that the public information committee be '* * * empowered to conduct a program for education of the public relative to the proposed constitution, and be it further resolved...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Yashar, No. PC 06-1866 (R.I. Super 3/21/2007)
...public interest in having the matter resolved." R.I. Ophthalmologic Society v. Cannon, 317 A.2d at 129 (quoting Sennott v. Hawksley, 103 R. I. 730, 241 A.2d 286 (1968)). 32. It really cannot be disputed that the State Court Administrator is empowered to calculate judicial pensions. R.I. Gen......
-
Watson v. Fox
...and that they, therefore, cannot meet the injury-in-fact test.” Furthermore, relying on this Court's ruling in Sennott v. Hawksley, 103 R.I. 730, 731–32, 241 A.2d 286, 287 (1968), she found that there was no time-sensitive element that would compel the court to “leap-frog” over the issue of......
-
In re 38 Studios Grand Jury
...Watson , 44 A.3d at 138 (brackets omitted) (quoting Burns v. Sundlun , 617 A.2d 114, 116 (R.I. 1992) ); see Sennott v. Hawksley , 103 R.I. 730, 732, 241 A.2d 286, 287 (1968) (explaining that "because there was a substantial public interest in the adoption or rejection of a new constitution,......
-
Rhode Island Ophthalmological Soc. v. Cannon
...proceeded to determine the merits of a case because of the substantial public interest in having the matter resolved. Sennott v. Hawksley, 103 R.I. 730, 241 A.2d 286 (1968). The Newport National Bank case is the precursor of today's rule. It is our belief that standing can now be determined......