LARSON v STATE DEPT OF REVENUE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12809 I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE OF M N A A H OR F OTN 1975 J. EINAR LARSON, e t a l . , Plaintiffs, THE STATE O M N A A and THE F OTN DEPARTMENT O REVENUE, e t a 1. , F Defendants. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable James D. Freebourn, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: -4I C L L ,L (! ,' For ~lalLTitll!Zs : t--1 R. Bruce McGinnis appeared, Helena, Montana Randall Swanberg argued, Great F a l l s , Montana ,I '" { $ Ll:4/J ( . For & f e n en s : L UI r L L 4 ~ A . Sa~,Wcrp,fi f u d * ~ ~ S c r i b n e r and Huss , Helena, Montana Lawrence D. Huss argued, Helena, Montana Thoaas Dowling, County Attorney, Helena, Montana ~ eE iB. Erickson, Deputy County Attorney appeared, hi Lena, Montana William Leaphart, C i t y Attorney, Helena, Montana Submitted March 3, 1975 Decided:APR 2 4 1975 Filed : APR 2 4% ~ Y ' f i Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . T h i s a p p e a l i s by d e f e n d a n t s f r 0 m . a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment and i n j u n c t i o n e n t e r e d a g a i n s t them i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Lewis and C l a r k County. Defendants ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e s t a t e ) a r e a g e n c i e s and i n d i v i d u a l s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e a p p r a i s a l of p r o p e r t y i n L e w i s and C l a r k County f o r t a x a t i o n p u r poses. P l a i n t i f f s (hereinafter referred t o a s taxpayers ) a r e owners of r e a l p r o p e r t y i n Lewis and C l a r k County, and Helena P r o p e r t y Owners A s s o c i a t i o n , a c o r p o r a t i o n . Taxpayers b r o u g h t t h i s s u i t a s a c l a s s a c t i o n , r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e m s e l v e s and a l l o t h e r owners of r e a l p r o p e r t y i n L e w i s and C l a r k County s u b j e c t t o t a x a t i o n computed upon v a l u a t i o n s a s a p p r a i s e d by t h e s t a t e . Lewis and C l a r k County and t h e C i t y of Helena a p p e a r e d a s i n t e r v e n o r s , supporting t h e taxpayers' position. A s i s t h e p r a c t i c e i n many p a r t s of t h e country, Montana t a x e s r e a l p r o p e r t y and improvements by a n a p p r a i s a l - a s s e s s m e n t l e v y method. the appraisal. -- T h i s l a w s u i t i n v o l v e s t h e f i r s t of t h e s e s t e p s P r i o r t o 1972, t h e l a s t county-wide a p p r a i s a l i n Lewis and C l a r k County was o n e completed i n 1 9 6 2 . A t t h e urging of t h e S t a t e Board of E q u a l i z a t i o n ( p r e d e c e s s o r t o t h e Department of Revenue, a d e f e n d a n t h e r e ) , Lewis and C l a r k County h i r e d a p r i v a t e f i r m , James R . L a i r d wide a p p r a i s a l i n 1972-1973. & A s s o c i a t e s , t o c o n d u c t a countyHowever, b e f o r e Lewis and C l a r k County c o u l d u s e t h a t a p p r a i s a l t o a d j u s t i t s t a x r o l l s , s t a t u t o r y and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l changes s h i f t e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a p p r a i s a l s t o the state. S e c t i o n 84-429.7, R.C.M. 1947; Article V I I I , Sec- t i o n 3 , 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . When t h e s t a t e assumed t h e s e new r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , it w a s d e t e r m i n e d t h e L a i r d a p p r a i s a l would be used f o r 1974 Lewis and C l a r k County a s s e s s m e n t s . N o t i c e of t h i s proposed a c t i o n prompted t h e t a x p a y e r s t o f i l e t h i s s u i t , s e e k i n g a d e c l a r a t i o n ~ h a c ~ n p L sL i e o I ~ O tile L a i r d a p p r a i s a l would v i o l a t e con- s c i t u t i o n a l and s t a t u t o r y l i m i t a t i o n s o n t h e s t a t e ' s power t o tax. The s t a t e h e r e a p p e a l s from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e c l a r - a t i o n t h a t t h e p r o p o s e d u s e of t h e L a i r d a p p r a i s a l would v i o i a t e e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n , d u e p r o c e s s , and u n i f o r m i t y r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s and Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n s , and Montana statutes. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n j o i n e d u s e o f t h e a p p r a i s a l on t h e s e g r o u n d s , and t h e s t a t e a l s o a p p e a l s f r o m t h a t r u l i n g . These i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r t h i s C o u r t ' s determin- 1. Would i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e L a i r d a p p r a i s a l v i o l a t e c o r i s t l t u t i o n a l and s t a t u t o r y l i m i t a t i o n s o n t h e s t a t e ' s power t o a p p r a i s e and t a x ? 2. Must t h e t a x p a y e r s e x h a u s t t h e i r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e remedies before p r o t e s t i n g t h e a p p r a i s a l i n t h e c o u r t s ? 3. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err i n g r a n t i n g i n j u n c t i v e 4. Is t h e judgment s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ? 5. Should t a x p a y e r s ' motion t o s t r i k e p o r t i o n s of t h e relief? s t a t e ' s a p p e l l a t e b r i e f be g r a n t e d ? However, b e f o r e c o n s i d e r i n g t h e s e i s s u e s , two f a c t u a l d i s p u t e s must n e c e s s a r i l y h e r e s o l v e d . F i r s t , t h e s t a t e a l l e g e s t h e following f i n d i n g s of f a c t a r e contrary t o t h e evidence presented a t t h e t r i a l : "The r e a p p r a i s a l o f p r o p e r t y l y i n g w i t h i n L e w i s and C l a r k County c o n d u c t e d , b y James R . L a i r d & A s s o c i a t e s and a d o p t e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t DEPARTMENT O F REVENUE and i t s o f f i c e r s , a g e n t s and employees f o r t h e f i s c a l y e a r 1974-1975 was n o t c o n d u c t e d as a p a r t of a uniform p l a n f o r r e a p p r a i s a l of a l l ; > r o p e r t y w i t h i n t h e S t a t e o f Montana. "XIV. "The d e f e n d a n t DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE h a s n o t a d o p t e d o r implemented a u n i f o r m p l a n f o r t h e i i p p r a ~ s a l , a s s e s s m e n t and e q u a l i z a t i o n o f a l l l ~ r o p e r t y i t h i n t h e S t a t e o f Montana." w N n i l e a f a c t u a l d i s p u t e c o n c e r n i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e and i m p i e m e n t a t i o n of a u n i f o r m p l a n i s p r e s e n t e d by t h e r e c o r d , w e f i n d ample e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g t h e q u o t e d f i n d i n g s . For example, t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r of t h e p r o p e r t y v a l u a t i o n d e p a r t m e n t o f t h e Department o f Revenue was c a l l e d a s a n a d v e r s e w i t n e s s by t h e t a x p a y e r s . H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t , t o h i s knowledge, there was no s t a t e - w i d e p l a n f o r r e a p p r a i s a l a t t h e t i m e o f t h e L a i r d appraisal. He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a l t h o u g h some p l a n s have s i n c e been f o r m u l a t e d , none would employ t h e same methods u s e d by James R . Laird & Associates. A review of t h e r e c o r d f i n d s t h i s c e s t i m o n y t o b e u n c o n t r a d i c t e d , and c e r t a i n l y a d e q u a t e t o s u p p o r t t h e quoted f i n d i n g s of f a c t . Second, i s t h e c o m p a r i s o n o f a p p r a i s a l s between p r o p e r t i e s i n Lewis and C l a r k County and o t h e r c o u n t i e s . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t found : "The a p p r a i s e d v a l u e o f r u r a l a n d u r b a n improvem e n t s f o r p r o p e r t y l y i n g w i t h i n Lewis and C l a r k County f o r t h e f i s c a l y e a r 1973-74 were a s h i g h o r higher than t h e appraised v a l u e of s i m i l a r p r o p e r t i e s l y i n g i n comparable c o u n t i e s o u t s i d e o f Lewis a n d C l a r k County f o r t h e same p e r i o d of time." "XI. "T'he r e a p p r a i s a l o f p r o p e r t y l y i n g w i t h i n L e w i s a n d C l a r k County c o n d u c t e d by James R . L a i r d s A s s o c i a t e s and a d o p t e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t 3EPARTMENT OF REVENUE and i t s o f f i c e r s , a g e n t s and employees f o r i m p l e m e n t a t i o n f o r t h e f i s c a l y e a r 1974-75 h a s r e s u l t e d i n p r o p e r t y w i t h i n L e w i s and C l a r k County b e i n g a p p r a i s e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y h i g h e r t h a n s i m i l a r p r o p e r t y i n comparable c ~ u n t i e s u t s i d e o f L e w i s and C l a r k County." o A g a i n , t h e s t a t e a r g u e s t h e q u o t e d f i n d i n g s a r e conc r a r y t o t h e evidence presented a t t h e t r i a l and, a g a i n , w e Jisagree. T a x p a y e r s c a l l e d a n e x p e r t who, a f t e r b e i n g d u l y q u a l i f i e d a n d , a f t e r l a y i n g t h e p r o p e r f o u n d a t i o n , formed similar conclusions on the basis of his investigations. The state called an expert who drew different conclusions on the basis of his own investigation. This Court has held on numer- ous occasions--the trier of fact is best situated to determine the credibility of witnesses and weigh their testimony. For a recent discussion of the applicable principles see Holenstein v. Andrews , Mont . , 530 P.2d 476, 32 St.Rep. 41. The testi- mony of the taxpayers1 expert here is sufficient to support the quoted findings of fact. Accepting as facts the absence of a state-wide appraisal plan and the disproportionate appraisal made on Lewis and Clark property, we turn to the legal questions presented. The district court concluded that the adoption of the Laird appraisal would require taxpayers to bear a disproportionate share of Montana's tax burden, in violation of the equal protection requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 11, Section 4, 1972 Montana Constitution. The use of the appraisal was also found to violate the due process requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 11, Sections 17 and 29, 1972 Montana Constitution. Finally, the district court found the appraisal violated the provisions of Title 84, Chapter 4, R.C.M. 1947, which requires general and uniform appraisal, assessment and equalization of all taxable property in the state. In bringing this appeal, the state challenges all of these conclusions of law. We will not discuss the United States Con- stitutional questions in this opinion, since the appeal can be decided on the basis of Montana's Constitution and statutes. Section 84-429.12, R.C.M. 1947, provides in pertinent part : "It is hereby made the duty of the state d e p a r t m e n t of revenue t o implement t h e prov i s i o n s of t h i s a c t by p r o v i d i n g : "2. For a g e n e r a l and uniform method of a p p r a i s i n g c i t y and town l o t s . " 3 . For a g e n e r a l and u n i f o r m method of a p p r a i s i n g r u r a l and urban improvements." A " g e n e r a l and uniform method of a p p r a i s i n g " n e c e s s a r i l y r e q u i r e s t h a t e a c h a p p r a i s a l o r r e a p p r a i s a l must be p a r t of a p l a n which p r o v i d e s t h a t a l l s i m i l a r p r o p e r t i e s w i l l be v a l u e d i n a l i k e manner. The p l a i n meaning o f t h e s t a t u t o r y language a d m i t s of no o t h e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The a b s e n c e of s u c h a p l a n , a s discussed e a r l i e r i n t h i s opinion, thus prevents lawful imp l e m e n t a t i o n of t h e L a i r d a p p r a i s a l . A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n s 4 and 1 7 , 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n compel t h e same r e s u l t . These s e c t i o n s g u a r a n t e e e q u a l p r o t e c - t i o n and due p r o c e s s t o t h e t a x p a y e r s a g g r i e v e d h e r e . The L a i r d a p p r a i s a l was found t o i n c r e a s e Lewis and C l a r k County t a x a b l e v a l u a t i o n s t o a l e v e l i n e x c e s s of v a l u a t i o n s of s i m i l a r p r o p e r t y i n other counties. The o b v i o u s r e s u l t , and t h a t found by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , i s a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e s h a r e o f t h e t a x burden p l a c e d upon L e w i s and C l a r k County t a x p a y e r s . W f i n d t h e v i o l a t i o n s of t h e c i t e d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l proe visions a r e patent. However, s i n c e i t h a s a l r e a d y been e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t u s e of t h e a p p r a i s a l was u n l a w f u l under t h e s t a t u t e c i t e d , we w i l l n o t l e n g t h e n t h i s o p i n i o n w i t h a complete d i s c u s s i o n of these constitutional violations. Authorities a r e i n accord, h o l d i n g t h a t v i o l a t i o n s of s t a t u t o r y u n i f o r m i t y r e q u i r e m e n t s g e n e r a l l y r e s u l t i n v i o l a t i o n s of e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n - d u e p r o c e s s requirements. 7 1 Am J u r 2d. S t a t e and L o c a l T a x a t i o n , S158, and cases footnoted t h e r e . I n s o h o l d i n g , we a r e aware of t h e abund- a n c e o f a u t h o r i t y which f i n d s no v i o l a t i o n of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o r s t a t u t o r y mandates i n t h e temporary i n e q u a l i t i e s which accompany a c y c l i c a l p l a n of r e a p p r a i s a l . An e x c e l l e n t d i s c u s s i o n of a p p l i c a b l e law i n t h i s r e g a r d i s found i n H i l l o c k v . Bade, 22 Ariz.App. 46, 523 P.2d 97, and i n t h e A n n o t a t i o n , 76 ALR2d 1077. Here, t h e f a t a l f l a w i n t h e s t a t e ' s p o s i t i o n i s t h e abs e n c e o f any p l a n . Without such a p l a n , t h e r e i s no a s s u r a n c e of u n i f o r m i t y of a p p r a i s a l method o r of s e q u e n t i a l s e l e c t i o n property f o r reappraisal. The s t a t e ' s p o s i t i o n i s even weaker t h a n t h a t of t h e t a x i n g o f f i c i a l s i n S p a r k s v . McCluskey, 84 A r i z . 283, 327 P.2d 295, 297, where t h e Arizona c o u r t held,: "We c a n n o t s u b s c r i b e t o t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t g r o s s l y i n e q u a l v a l u e s by t h e u s e of a s p e c i f i c method of a s s e s s m e n t may be p l a c e d on a s m a l l p o r t i o n o f a c l a s s of p r o p e r t y and remain subj e c t t o t h e disproportionately excessive value f o r a n i n d e f i n i t e number of y e a r s i n t h e f u t u r e u n t i l t h e t a x i n g o f f i c i a l s c a n g e t around t o u s i n g t h e same method upon t h e o t h e r l i k e properties. " I t i s c l e a r t h e s t a t e ' s proposed i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of t h e L a i r d a p p r a i s a l i s p r o h i b i t e d by Montana c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and s t a t u t o r y provisions. I n s o h o l d i n g , we do n o t p r o h i b i t t h e u s e o f c y c l i c a l p l a n s o f r e a p p r a i s a l , nor do we h o l d t h a t s u c h a p l a n c o u l d n o t b e g i n w i t h a r e a p p r a i s a l o f t h e p r o p e r t y i n Lewis and C l a r k County. The s t a t e h a s t h e l e g a l a u t h o r i t y t o d e t e r m i n e t h e o r d e r of r e a p p r a i s a l . W hold only t h a t t h e s t a t e ' s d e t e r e m i n a t i o n s must be a p a r t of a g e n e r a l and uniform p l a n f o r reappraising a l l l i k e property i n t h e s t a t e . The s t a t e a l s o c o n t e n d s t h e t a x p a y e r s s h o u l d have been required t o exhaust t h e i r s t a t u t o r y , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e remedies before bringing t h i s challenge i n t h e courts. The p r o c e d u r e s u g g e s t e d would r e q u i r e h e a r i n g s b e f o r e t h e c o u n t y t a x a p p e a l board ( s e c t i o n 84-603, R.C.M. 1947) w i t h a s u b s e q u e n t a p p e a l , i f u n s u c c e s s f u l , b e f o r e t h e s t a t e t a x a p p e a l board ( s e c t i o n 84709, R.C.M. 1947). I n a n e a r l y c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e s e s t a t u t e s (which have since been amended in respects not relevant here), this Court held, in Belknap Realty Co. V. Simineo, 67 Mont. 359, 365, 215 "The statutes having made ample provision whereby a taxpayer may have any alleged excessive or erroneous assessment or valuation of his property reviewed by the county and state boards of equalization, this remedy is exclusive except in cases where fraud or the sdo2tion of a kund,amentallywrong principle of assessment is shown." (Emphasis supplied. ) The state's use of an unconstitutional and illegal appraisal here is the type of "fundamentally wrong principle" of appraisal for which specific exception was made ir Belknap. Were it other- wise, we would have the anomalous situation of an administrative, quasi-judicial board passing on constitutional and statutory questions presented by this appeal. Tax appeal boards are particularly suited for settling disputes over the appropriate valuation of a given piece of property or a particular improvement, and the judiciary cannot properly interfere with that function. Mont. 176, 315 P.2d 177. Blair v. Potter, 132 The instant case does not concern the value of a specific tract of land within Lewis and Clark County, but rather the constitutional and statutory correctness of implementing a discriminatory reappraisal. That determination is an appropriate function of the courts. In Conrad v. Managhan, 157 Mont. 335, 485 P.2d 948, this Court noted that when a taxing authority lacks the statutory power to increase appraisals, an aggrieved taxpayer may seek equitable relief in the courts. Conrad speaks both to the ad- ministrative remedy issue and the injunctive relief issue raised by the state in the instant case. The state was outside its statutory authority in attempting to implement the Laird appraisal. Under these facts, taxpayers may proceed in the courts to seek injunctive relief. However, t h e s c a t e a r g u e s s e c t i o n 93-4203 (4), R.C.M. L 9 4 7 , ; + r o n i b i t s i s s u a n c e o f ail i n j u n c t i o n p r e v e n t i n g e x e c u t i o n af p u b l i c s t a t u t e s by p u b l i c o f f i c e r s , a n d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e r e i g n o r e d t h a t l i m i t a t i o n on i t s e q u i t a b l e powers. While t h e c i t e d s e c t i o n d o e s p r o h i b i t e n j o i n i n g t h e e x e c u t i o n of s t a t u t o r y d u t i e s , s e c t i o n 84-4505, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s f o r a n i n j u n c t i o n where t h e t a x , o r a p a r t t h e r e o f s o u g h t t o b e 2njoined, i s i l l e g a l o r u n a u t h o r i z e d by law. Heretofore, we h e l d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e L a i r d a p p r a i s a l would b e i l l e g a l a n d unauthorized. The s u g g e s t e d d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e s t a t u t o r y u s e o f t h e word " t a x " a n d t h e o p e r a t i v e f a c t o f a n " a p p r a i s a l n here i s without substance. The ~ a i r d p p r a i s a l would h a v e been a used a s t h e b a s i s f o r c o m p u t a t i o n o f t a x e s . This Court's r e f u s a l t o recognize t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n is admittedly c o n t r a r y t o d i c t a c o n t a i n e d i n S t a t e e x r e l . K e a s t v . ~ r i e y ,1 4 5 Mont. 521, 402 P . 2 d 405. I n Keast, an i n j u n c t i o n 2 r o h i b i t i n g u t i l i z a t i o n of a c e r t a i n v a l u a t i o n f o r t a x purposes was q u a s h e d . The i n j u n c t i o n had b e e n i s s u e d w i t h o u t n o t i c e , and p l a i n t i f f s had shown no i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y . il-i 'Those g r o u n d s , t h e m s e l v e s , were s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t q u a s h i n g t h e i n j u n c t i o n , and tile C o u r t e x p r e s s l y r e c o g n i z e d t h a t f a c t . Nonetheless, it went on t o f i n d t h e i n j u n c t i o n was a l s o banned by s e c t i o n 93-4203, H.Z.M. 1947. For reasons h e r e t o f o r e s t a t e d , t h a t holding i s expressly overruled. The p r e f e r a b l e l a w i s e n u n c i a t e d i n Hames v . C i t y o f P o l s o n , 123 Mont. 469, 479, 215 P . 2 d 950, where i t was h e l d : " * * * p u b l i c b o d i e s and p u b l i c o f f i c e r s may be r e s t r a i n e d by i n j u n c t i o n f r o m p r o c e e d i n g i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e law, t o t h e p r e j u d i c e of t h e public, o r t o t h e i n j u r y of i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s * * * .I' The p r o p r i e t y of i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f i s a l s o r e c o g n i z e d by M o n t a n a ' s s k a t u t e g o v e r n i n g payment of t a x e s u n d e r p r o t e s t . S e c t i o n 84-4504, "The remedy h e r e b y p r o v i d e d s h a l l s u p e r s e d e t h e remedy of i n j u n c t i o n znd a l l o t h e r r e m e d i e s which m i g h t b e i n v o k e d t o p r e v e n t t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f t a x e s o r l i c e n s e s a l l e q e d t o be i r r e a u l a r l v l e v i e d o r demanded, e x c e p t i n u n u s u a l cases where t h e remedy p r o v i d e d i s deemed by t h e c o u r t t o be i n a d e q u a t e . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) A The i n t e n t o f t h e L e g i s l a t u r e t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e r e t e n t i o n of e q u i t a b l e r e m e d i e s i n t a x a t i o n c a s e s where s t a t u t o r y r e m e d i e s prove inadequate i s e v i d e n t . To h o l d t h a t e q u i t a b l e r e m e d i e s a r e n o t a v a i l a b l e f o r h a l t i n g u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and i l l e g a l a p p r a i s a l s would p r o d u c e t h e s t r a n g e r e s u l t o f p r o h i b i t i n g enjoining u t i l i z a t i o n of an i l l e g a l a p p r a i s a l while allowing t h e e n j o i n i n g o f l e v i e s computed upon t h a t a p p r a i s a l . 4505, R.C.M. 1947. Section 84- W e w i l l n o t s o hold. The f a c t s d i s c u s s e d t h r o u g h o u t t h i s o p i n i o n s u f f i c i e n t l y answer t h e s t a t e ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e d o e s n o t s u p p o r t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment. The i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e L a i r d a p p r a i s a l f a i l s b e c a u s e t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t h a t it was n o t a p a r t o f a g e n e r a l and u n i f o r m , s t a t e - w i d e p l a n . We c a n n o t a p p r o v e u s e o f a n a p p r a i s a l which would r e s u l t i n a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y , d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e t a x b u r d e n on Lewis and C l a r k County t a x p a y e r s , when t h e a p p r a i s a l s u f f e r s t h e d e f i c i e n c i e s already noted. F i n a l l y , t h e t a x p a y e r s ' motion t h a t p o r t i o n s of t h e s t a t e ' s a p p e l l a t e b r i e f s h o u l d be s t r i c k e n w i l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d . S i n c e o u r d e c i s i o n h o l d s i n f a v o r of t h e t a x p a y e r s , t h e y have n o t been p r e j u d i c e d by t h e m a t e r i a l s i n t h e s t a t e ' s b r i e f - - w h e t h e r properly included t h e r e i n o r not. The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . Justice We concur:

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.