Taylor v. Lee Taylor v. Lee

Taylor v. Lee

UT.4 , 226 P.2d 531, 119 Utah 302 (1951)

    • € 0,99
    • € 0,99

Beschrijving uitgever

LATIMER, Justice. On January 3, 1950, defendant J. Bracken Lee, Governor of the State of Utah, directed a letter to plaintiff
Milton B. Taylor advising him that in accordance with Section 82C-2-2, U.C.A., 1943, he, Taylor, was being removed as a member
of the Commission of Finance. The reason assigned in the letter for the removal was that prior to the time the Governor assumed
office Taylor as a member of the Commission had approved certain bond purchases from a local broker contrary to the intent
and spirit of Section 82C-2-34, U.C.A., 1943. The charge was predicated upon information furnished to the Governor by the
newly appointed chairman of the commission. Prior to the sending of the letter of removal, Taylor had been in at least two
conferences with the Governor in which the questionable method of purchasing the bonds had been discussed. One hold-over commissioner,
in addition to Taylor, had participated in one of the meetings, and in the transactions, but he resigned for other reasons
prior to Taylor's removal. On January 10, 1950, plaintiff filed his complaint in this action in the Third Judicial District Court alleging in substance
that he had not been furnished with information concerning the charges against him, that he had not been given an opportunity
to defend himself, and that the act of the Governor in removing him was illegal and without force and effect. In his complaint,
plaintiff sought to have himself reinstated as a commissioner and prayed that an appropriate writ be issued out of the court
directing and commanding the Governor to certify to the court any and all records, charges and findings pertaining to plaintiff's
removal from office. The writ was issued and served upon the Governor and he was directed to certify his proceedings to the
court. There are other defendants and relief was sought as against them, but all issues are dependent on and controlled by
those between the plaintiff and the Governor. For that reason we shall hereafter treat the action as one solely between the
Commissioner and the Governor.

GENRE
Professioneel en technisch
UITGEGEVEN
1951
13 januari
TAAL
EN
Engels
LENGTE
46
Pagina's
UITGEVER
LawApp Publishers
PROVIDER INFO
Innodata Book Distribution Services Inc
GROOTTE
68,4
kB
Philipp Brothers v. Oil Country Specialists Philipp Brothers v. Oil Country Specialists
1990
Richard Donald Foster v. State Texas Richard Donald Foster v. State Texas
1989
Benny Fatt v. Utah State Tax Commission Benny Fatt v. Utah State Tax Commission
1994
Emerald Oil Co. v. State Tax Commission Emerald Oil Co. v. State Tax Commission
1954
Dillon Smith v. Utah Central Credit Union Dillon Smith v. Utah Central Credit Union
1986
Kirchgestner v. Denver & Rio Grande Kirchgestner v. Denver & Rio Grande
1951