declining "`to attribute any such attitude to the Legislature'" and noting that a party's argument as to why a bill failed to pass "`can be nothing more than conjecture'" and "`[m]any other reasons for legislative inaction readily suggest themselves'" (quoting Moore v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 76 N.J.Super. 396, 404, 184 A.2d 748, 752 (App.Div.), modified on other grounds, 39 N.J. 26, 186 A.2d 676 (1962))
How later courts described this case
- declining "`to attribute any such attitude to the Legislature'" and noting that a party's argument as to why a bill failed to pass "`can be nothing more than conjecture'" and "`[m]any other reasons for legislative inaction readily suggest themselves'" (quoting Moore v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 76 N.J.Super. 396, 404, 184 A.2d 748, 752 (App.Div.), modified on other grounds, 39 N.J. 26, 186 A.2d 676 (1962))
- declining “ ‘to attribute any such attitude to the Legislature’ ” and noting that a party’s argument as to why a bill failed to pass “ ‘can be nothing more than conjecture’ ” and “ ‘[m]any other reasons for legislative inaction readily suggest themselves’ ” (quoting Moore v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 76 N.J. Super. 396, 404, 184 A.2d 748, 752, modified on other grounds, 39 N.J. 26, 186 A.2d 676 (1962))
- stating that “[w]hether there is enough evidence to support a material issue is always a question of law for the court”
- “[O]rdinarily the intent of the legislature is indicated by its actions, and not by its failure to act.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice Higgins
concurring in result:
The plaintiffs, as individuals, brought this action in the Superior Court of Wake County against Dr. Phillips, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, ex officio member of the State Board of Education, A. C. Davis, Controller, State Board of Education, Edwin Gill, Treasurer of North Carolina, and George S. Lambert, State Disbursing Officer, seeking to restrain their official acts relating to the expenditure of State funds for transporting (by bus) pupils in Winston-Salem and other cities and towns to and from schools located within their respective cities.
*476 The defendants answered and moved to dismiss on the ground the plaintiffs' lacked standing to maintain the suit. If the pleadings present the question of the plaintiffs’ right to maintain the action, and I think it does, other questions and the necessity for discussing them do not arise.
In the case of Insurance Company v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 217 N.C. 495 , 8 S.E. 2d 619 , the plaintiff brought suit against the members of the Unemployment Compensation Commission of North Carolina. The court said: “An action against a commission or board created by statute as an agency of the State where the interest or rights of the State are directly affected is in fact an action against the State.” In Schloss v. Highway Commission, 230 N.C. 489 , 53 S.E. 2d 517 , the court said: “That the sovereign may not be sued, either in its own courts or elsewhere, without its consent, is an established principle of jurisprudence in all civilized nations. (Citing many authorities). In the absence of consent or waiver, this immunity against suit is absolute and unqualified.” In the case of Insurance Company v. Gold, Commissioner, 254 N.C. 168 , 118 S.E. 2d 792 , this court said: “ ‘An action against a commission or board created by statute as an agency of the State where the interest or rights of the State are directly affected is in fact an action against the State . ’ The State is immune from suit unless and until it has expressly consented to be sued. It is for the General Assembly to determine when and under what circumstances the State may be sued.” See also Electric Company v. Turner 275 N.C. 493 , 168 S.E. 2d 385 .
I think this action should have been dismissed on the ground the plaintiffs failed to show the State had given its consent to be sued.