Andrus v. State

I dissent upon the sole ground that plaintiffs ought to recover against the State under Section 22 of Article I of the Constitution of Utah pursuant to the doctrine of “inverse condemnation” rather than under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act. This is important to the plaintiffs because of the limitation on the amount they may recover imposed by that Act, even if their damages are found to be far greater.

In taking this position I recognize that the decisions of this court, unless overruled, preclude such result.1 However, I believe the law enunciated in those cases, to the extent that they…