furnished”). This court need not decide at this time whether or not the Utah Supreme Court would follow Hootch. The plaintiffs’ specific claims in this case are for violations of the federal constitution’s equal protection provisions and for violations of various federal laws. Kowallis’s “rather broad dicta” appears to make the state constitutional guarantee of open schools coextensive with equal protection guarantees. The court will therefore address the defendants’ duty in the context of the plaintiffs’ equal protection claim. G. The Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection Claim (First Claim for Relief) The plaintiffs’ first claim for relief alleges that the defendants have deliberately discriminated against the plaintiffs based on their race, in violat 96 S.Ct. 943, 948, 47 L.Ed.2d 106 (1976) (<HOLDING>); Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 553-55, 94
holding the argument that the state and federal constitutions required appointed counsel in adoption proceeding was not preserved holding that defamation action is not a proceeding arising in a bankruptcy case holding no state court jurisdiction in an adoption proceeding holding that parties not related to the child could not file an adoption petition and later prove the unfitness of the natural parents because the child was not available for adoption as defined in the adoption act parents had to be found unfit before petition could be filed holding that indians could be denied access to state courts in connection with an adoption proceeding arising on a reservation