Legal Opinion · Dissent

Garfield Cnty. v. United States

Utah Supreme Court

Decided July 26, 2017No. Case No. 20150335Published

1Dissent

Judge Voros, dissenting:

¶ 39 I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion employs the absurdity doctrine to override the plain meaning of section 201 on the ground that it would yield a result so overwhelmingly absurd that no rational legislator could have intended it. But the claimed absurd result-that Utah would enjoy rights of way granted by the United States without a judicial remedy for quieting title to them against the United States-was the prevailing law nationwide for 106 years, from the passage of the Mining Act in 1866 until the passage of the Quiet Title Act in 1972.

¶ 40 For this…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Block v. North Dakota Ex Rel. Board of University & School LandsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Kungys v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  4. Van Brocklin v. TennesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  5. Phillips Chemical Co. v. Dumas Independent School DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1960

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API