Orem City v. Pyne

Utah Supreme Court

Orem City v. Pyne

401 P.2d 181, 16 Utah 2d 355, 1965 Utah LEXIS 557

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedApril 9, 1965

DocketNo. 10211

StatusPublished

This text of 401 P.2d 181 (Orem City v. Pyne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Orem City v. Pyne, 401 P.2d 181, 16 Utah 2d 355, 1965 Utah LEXIS 557 (Utah 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

HENRIOD, Chief Justice:

Appeal from a dismissal of a complaint charging violation of a revenue-raising ordinance where Pyne, a used-car dealer refused to pay a so-called “business tax” on the ground it was unconstitutionally discriminatory. Affirmed.

Orem passed an ordinance in which businesses were charged with a tax, admittedly to raise revenue, in which about 201 alleged businesses were affected, including Pyne’s, with many exceptions allowed for similar businesses.

The district court held that as to Pyne, with reservations, the ordinance was unconstitutional. We agree, and without burdening the official reports with details, make reference to the scholarly opinion of Judge Harding, in support of our conclusion. This case is No. 4039, District Court of Utah County, State of Utah, above title, decision August 3, 1964, and this Court No. 10211, filed August 19, 1964, and decided this date. The reader may refer to the official record of the trial court and of this Court, both of which may be noticed judicially, for the reasons we espouse in affirming the trial court.

The record indicates that this ordinance puts some businesses on a flat-fee basis with only about Va as much tax as the sales tax basis. This appears to be discriminatory.

McDONOUGH, CROCKETT, WADE and CALLISTER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HENRIOD, Chief Justice:

Appeal from a dismissal of a complaint charging violation of a revenue-raising ordinance where Pyne, a used-car dealer refused to pay a so-called “business tax” on the ground it was unconstitutionally discriminatory. Affirmed.

Orem passed an ordinance in which businesses were charged with a tax, admittedly to raise revenue, in which about 201 alleged businesses were affected, including Pyne’s, with many exceptions allowed for similar businesses.

The district court held that as to Pyne, with reservations, the ordinance was unconstitutional. We agree, and without burdening the official reports with details, make reference to the scholarly opinion of Judge Harding, in support of our conclusion. This case is No. 4039, District Court of Utah County, State of Utah, above title, decision August 3, 1964, and this Court No. 10211, filed August 19, 1964, and decided this date. The reader may refer to the official record of the trial court and of this Court, both of which may be noticed judicially, for the reasons we espouse in affirming the trial court.

The record indicates that this ordinance puts some businesses on a flat-fee basis with only about Va as much tax as the sales tax basis. This appears to be discriminatory.

McDONOUGH, CROCKETT, WADE and CALLISTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

401 P.2d 181, 16 Utah 2d 355, 1965 Utah LEXIS 557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orem-city-v-pyne-utah-1965.