# Bingham v. BD. OF ED. OF OGDEN CITY

> Utah Supreme Court · October 25, 1950 · 118 Utah 582

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9540373

## Case

- **Full name:** Bingham v. Board of Education of Ogden City
- **Court:** Utah Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 25, 1950
- **Citations:** 118 Utah 582; 223 P.2d 423; 1950 Utah LEXIS 200
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Wade
- **Judges:** Latimer, Wade, Wolfe, McDonough
- **Cited by:** 29 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9540373

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that because “the acts complained of were committed in the performance of a governmental function, the rule of immunity applies”

## Opinion text

WADE, Justice
(dissenting).
Generally, I concur with the views expressed by Mr. Justice Wolfe. I am inclined to believe that the entire •doctrine of sovereign immunity is inconsistent with justice and correct principles and on that ground I do not agree with the decision in the prevailing opinion. However, in this case we are limited in our decision to the controlling facts here presented. Here we are concemd only with a case of negligence and as far as cases of this .kind are concerned, I think that the doctrine of immunity *593 has no application. There have probably been doctrines .announced in the past by this court under which the plaintiff in this case would be entitled to succeed without overruling the entire doctrine of sovereign immunity. I do not think we are now in a position to determine the limits or extent to which we would go in other types of cases.
There may be situations where public employees, and officers are really looking after their own interests although ostensibly acting for the public where it would not be in the public interests to make the public liable for their negligence. Certaintly there are cases where the doctrine of sovereign immunity is applicable to cases involving property rights as well as to liability for personal injuries, where the actions of interested parties have been influenced by court decisions. I therefore express no opinion as to how far we should overrule the doctrine. But I do think that it should be held to have no application to the facts of this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9540373. Public record. Not legal advice.