Abstract
It is clear that severability issues are not uncommon in federal or state courts. Court digests are full of examples of when legislative intent was honored it and when it was ignored. In Gallivan v. Walker, the court made no mention of the legislative history, altered a well-established standard by which severability is decided, and ignored decisions of other courts that previously decided cases involving identical facts and issues. As a consequence, the court overreached its constitutional limits. Utah government is designed to maintain separation of powers between the three branches of government. Each has its duties, and lawmaking is not assigned to the Utah Supreme Court. While severability has its positive purposes, as is clear from the Gallivan decision, the doctrine can often be manipulated and misused at the court's discretion, becoming the means by which a court can achieve its ends. While law can be considered a dialectic, meaning that "legislatures speak and courts review," Gallivan announced that in issues of severability, the process may change to a one-sided dialogue dominated by the courts.
Recommended Citation
Conde, Timothy K.
(2003)
"Gallivan v. Walker: An Example of Statutory Surgery and Severability Malpractice,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 2003:
No.
3, Article 6.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2003/iss3/6