STATE EX REL SCHOOL DIST NO 15-1

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14365 I N THE S P U- CCUIiT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F 1978 STATE ex rel., FLQFENCE-CARLTON SCHOOL D I m C T No. 15-6, Petitioner and Appellant, -vs- BQARD OF OUNIY ~ S S I O N E R S R A m 1 a? cDUNIY AND RAVALT;I cOUKTY PLANNIIG BOARD, Respondents, and EDGAR L. PRICE, e t a l . , Intervemrs and Respondents. Appeal fran: D i s t r i c t Court of the Fourth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Milodragovich, Dale and Dye, Missoula, Montana Harold Dye argued, Missoula, Wntana For Respondent: Douglas G. Harkin, Oounty Attorney, argued, Hamilton, Fbntana Datsopoulos and MacDonald, Missoula, Mntana Dennis L i d . argued, Missoula, Wntana For Amicus Curiae: Eon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Mntana Mike Mfarter argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, bllontana ~ e c i d e d : DEC Filed : DEC 5 - 1978 5 - 1978 Mr. ~ustice Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . his i s a n a p p e a l from a n o r d e r of t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l ~ i s t r i c C o u r t v a c a t i n g a n a l t e r n a t i v e w r i t of p r o h i b i t i o n t and mandate d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t t h e Board of County Commiss i o n e r s of R a v a l l i County and t h e R a v a l l i County P l a n n i n g Board. The w r i t d i r e c t e d t h e r e s p o n d e n t Boards t o make w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s of f a c t c o n c e r n i n g whether c e r t a i n proposed s u b d i v i s i o n s w i t h i n R a v a l l i County w e r e i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t w i t h i n t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 1 1 - 3 8 6 6 ( 4 ) , R.C.M. 1947. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t p e r m i t t e d t h e owners ( d e v e l o p e r s ) of t h e proposed s u b d i v i s i o n s t o i n t e r v e n e . On t h e i r motion it v a c a t e d t h e w r i t and r u l e d t h a t s e c t i o n 11-3866(4) d o e s n o t a p p l y t o t h e s u b d i v i s i o n s a t i s s u e and t h a t r e s p o n d e n t Board of County Commissioners need n o t make f i n d i n g s t h a t t h e proposed s u b d i v i s i o n s a r e i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . I n J u n e , 1977, Wilbur H e n s l e r o b t a i n e d a s u r v e y of a p o r t i o n of h i s r a n c h i n R a v a l l i County, d i v i d i n g t h e l a n d i n t o 7 1 p a r c e l s o f j u s t o v e r 20 acres e a c h . Hidden V a l l e y Ranches, a p a r t n e r s h i p o f Missoula businessmen, t h e n purc h a s e d a number of t h e s e p a r c e l s and s u b s e q u e n t l y r e s o l d them t o i n d i v i d u a l b u y e r s . A t the t i m e o f t h e s a l e by Hidden V a l l e y Ranches, t h e s e t r a c t s w e r e s u b j e c t t o r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s which p r e v e n t e d them from b e i n g s u b d i v i d e d i n t o p a r c e l s smaller than f i v e a c r e s each. The i n d i v i d u a l owners t h e n s u b m i t t e d p l a t s f o r t h e a p p r o v a l of 26 s e p a r a t e s u b d i v i s i o n s e a c h c o n s i s t i n g of less t h a n f i v e l o t s . The o r i g i n a l d i v i s i o n of t h e H e n s l e r Ranch i n t o t r a c t s e x c e e d i n g 20 a c r e s was exempt from r e v i e w under t h e s u b d i v i s i o n and P l a t t i n g A c t , s e c t i o n s 11-3859 t h r o u g h 3876, R.C.M. 1947. S e c t i o n 11-3861(12) d e f i n i n g " s u b d i v i s i o n " e x c l u d e s t r a c t s c o n t a i n i n g 20 o r more a c r e s . The A c t f u r t h e r p r o v i d e s t h a t s u b d i v i s i o n p l a t s which c o n t a i n f i v e o r fewer p a r c e l s t o be s o l d may be e l i g i b l e f o r "summary" r e v i e w under sect i o n s 11-3866(6) and 11-3863(5) r a t h e r t h a n t h e more compreh e n s i v e r e v i e w p r o c e d u r e s r e q u i r e d of s u b d i v i s i o n s which c o n t a i n more t h a n f i v e l o t s . A l l t h e p a r t i e s t o t h i s a c t i o n a g r e e t h a t t h e proposed s u b d i v i s i o n s a r e "minor" s u b d i v i s i o n s - - t h a t c o n t a i n f i v e o r fewer l o t s . i s , t h a t they Appellant School D i s t r i c t , however, c o n t e n d s t h e y d o n o t q u a l i f y f o r summary r e v i e w under s e c t i o n 1 1 - 3 8 6 6 ( 6 ) . F u r t h e r , i f they should q u a l i f y f o r such review, a p p e l l a n t contends t h e s t a t u t e r e q u i r e d r e s p o n d e n t Board o f County Commissioners t o make w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s t o determine i f t h e subdivisions a r e i n t h e public interest. Respondents a r g u e t h a t t h e s u b d i v i s i o n s q u a l i f y f o r summary r e v i e w and t h a t such r e v i e w d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t h e c o u n t y commissioners t o make w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s t o e v a l u a t e whether t h e s u b d i v i s i o n s a r e i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t f o r r e v i e w are: 1. Must a "minor" s u b d i v i s i o n which q u a l i f i e s f o r r e v i e w under s e c t i o n 1 1 - 3 8 6 6 ( 6 ) , R.C.M. 1947, m e e t t h e " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " r e q u i r e m e n t s of s e c t i o n 1 1 - 3 8 6 6 ( 4 ) , R.C.M. 1947? 2. Does a "minor" s u b d i v i s i o n , whose o n l y a c c e s s t o l o t s c o n s i s t s of p r i v a t e e a s e m e n t s , q u a l i f y f o r summary r e v i e w under s e c t i o n 1 1 - 3 8 6 6 ( 6 ) , R.C.M. 1947? The S u b d i v i s i o n and P l a t t i n g A c t , f i r s t e n a c t e d i n 1973 (Ch. 500, L a w s of Montana ( 1 9 7 3 ) ) , i s a t e c h n i c a l s t a t u t e which a t t e m p t s t o p r o v i d e t h e p r o p e r amount of p u b l i c cont r o l o v e r s u b d i v i s i o n development n e c e s s a r y t o e n s u r e c e r t a i n p u b l i c p r o t e c t i o n purposes. In its short lifetime, the Act h a s been amended s e v e r a l t i m e s , i n c l u d i n g amendments t o i t s purpose s e c t i o n ( s e c t i o n 11-3860) and t o i t s p r o v i s i o n s f o r review ( s e c t i o n 11-3866). There a r e two procedures f o r review of proposed subd i v i s i o n s by l o c a l governing b o d i e s . S u b d i v i s i o n s which a r e n o t e l i g i b l e f o r summary review under s e c t i o n 11-3866(6) must be reviewed a c c o r d i n g t o t h e procedures o u t l i n e d i n section 11-3866(1)-(5). Only t h o s e s u b d i v i s i o n s w i t h f i v e o r fewer l o t s , which have "proper a c c e s s " t o a l l l o t s and i n which no l a n d i s t o be d e d i c a t e d f o r p a r k s o r playgrounds may q u a l i f y f o r summary review under s u b s e c t i o n ( 6 ) . In s u b s e c t i o n ( 4 ) , t h e governing body i s d i r e c t e d t o d e t e r m i n e whether a proposed s u b d i v i s i o n i s " i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " . I f i t f i n d s t h a t i t i s n o t , t h e governing body i s bound t o disapprove t h e proposal. S e c t i o n 11-3866(4), R.C.M. 1947. The s u b s e c t i o n a l s o l i s t s e i g h t s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a which t h e governing body must weigh i n a r r i v i n g a t i t s d e c i s i o n of whether t h e s u b d i v i s i o n i s i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t : t h e b a s i s of t h e need f o r t h e s u b d i v i s i o n ; expressed p u b l i c o p i n i o n ; e f f e c t s on a g r i c u l t u r e ; e f f e c t s on l o c a l s e r v i c e s ; e f f e c t s on t a x a t i o n ; e f f e c t s on t h e n a t u r a l environment; e f f e c t s on w i l d l i f e and w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t , and e f f e c t s on t h e p u b l i c h e a l t h and s a f e t y . " A p p e l l a n t School D i s t r i c t a r g u e s t h a t a l l s u b d i v i s i o n s must be demonstrably i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t under t h e c r i t e r i a l i s t e d i n s e c t i o n 11-3866(4) b e f o r e a governing body may g i v e i t s a p p r o v a l , i n c l u d i n g t h o s e proposed s u b d i v i s i o n s which q u a l i f y f o r summary review under s e c t i o n 11-3866(6). Of p a r t i c u l a r importance t o t h e i s s u e r a i s e d by t h i s a p p e a l a r e t h e amendments t o t h e purpose s e c t i o n . A s origi- n a l l y e n a c t e d , t h e purpose s e c t i o n made no mention of w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . A 1975 amendment t o t h a t s e c t i o n added t h a t o n e o f t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e A c t was " t o r e q u i r e t h a t a p p r o v a l of any s u b d i v i s i o n b e c o n t i n g e n t upon a w r i t t e n f i n d i n g of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t by t h e g o v e r n i n g b o d y w . Ch. 498, S e c t i o n 1, Laws of Montana (1975) . I n t h e same c h a p t e r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e a l s o e n a c t e d a n amendment t o s e c t i o n T h a t amendment added a new s u b s e c t i o n ( 4 ) which 11-3866. p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e g o v e r n i n g body must weigh t h e e i g h t s p e c i f i e d c r i t e r i a l i s t e d above t o a r r i v e a t a w r i t t e n f i n d i n g of whether a proposed s u b d i v i s i o n i s i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . I f it f i n d s t h a t it i s n o t i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , t h e g o v e r n i n g body must d i s a p p r o v e t h e s u b d i v i s i o n . Ch. 498, S e c t i o n 3, Laws of Montana (1975) c o d i f i e d a t s e c t i o n 1 1 3866 ( 4 ) , R.C.M. 1947. The 1977 l e g i s l a t u r e f u r t h e r amended t h e p u r p o s e sect i o n (11-3860), s e c t i o n 11-3862, and s e c t i o n 11-3866. The p u r p o s e s e c t i o n w a s amended by q u a l i f y i n g t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t c l a u s e w i t h t h e words "whenever n e c e s s a r y " , a d d i n g " a p p r o p r i a t e " b e f o r e " a p p r o v a l " and d e l e t i n g "any" from i n f r o n t of " s u b d i v i sion". I t now r e a d s " t o r e q u i r e whenever n e c e s s a r y , the a p p r o p r i a t e a p p r o v a l o f s u b d i v i s i o n s b e c o n t i n g e n t upon a w r i t t e n f i n d i n g of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t by t h e g o v e r n i n g body". Ch. 552, S e c t i o n 1, Laws of Montana ( 1 9 7 7 ) . I n t h e same c h a p t e r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e a l s o c r e a t e d a s p e c i f i c modification of t h e written public i n t e r e s t finding requirement f o r c e r t a i n subdivisions w i t h i n previously a d o p t e d c o u n t y master p l a n s . ( 8 ) t o s e c t i o n 11-3862, The amendment added s u b s e c t i o n t o p r o v i d e t h a t a s u b d i v i s i o n which i s w i t h i n a c o u n t y ' s m a s t e r development p l a n i s "deemed t o be i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t and exempt from t h e r e q u i r e m e n t of a n environmental assessment." Ch. 552, S e c t i o n 2, Laws of Montana (1977) ( c o d i f i e d a t s e c t i o n 11-3862 ( 8 ) , R.C.M. 1947). In a separate chapter the 1977 session laws provide for an amendment adding subsection (6) to section 11-3866. 555, Sec. 1, Laws of Montana (1977). Ch. That subsection out- lines specific review procedures for subdivisions with less than five parcels which have proper access to all lots and which do not contain land to be dedicated for public recreation. It does not say specifically whether such proposed "minor" subdivisions are subject to the public interest requirement which was added in 1975. This particular ques- tion is still new to this Court, as the recent decision of Young v. Stillwater County Commissioners (1978), Mont . , 582 P.2d 353, 355, 35 St.Rep. 1099, 1102, specifically declined to rule on the issue. It is notable that the purpose section has twice been amended since the original passage of the Act. The first amendment, in 1975, added the public interest requirement to "any subdivision". The 1977 amendment, as noted above, qualified that language by adding "whenever necessary" and "appropriate" while deleting "any". The purpose of the 1977 amendments apparently is to make the purpose section consistent with the amendment to section 11-3862 which was contained in the same bill. As discussed above, the amendment to section 11-3862 added subsection (8) modifying the requirement of a written public interest finding by deeming certain proposed subdivisions to be in the public interest, ~hus, in those instances where a subdivision is within a county's master plan, the written public interest finding mandated in section 11-3866(4) is not necessary because the subdivision is presumed to be in the public interest. However, the provision for review of minor subdivisions in section 11-3866(6) makes no parallel presumption. he p r o v i s i o n i n s e c t i o n 11-3862(8) d o e s n o t exempt c e r t a i n s u b d i v i s i o n s from t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t c r i t e r i a - - i t merely presumes t h a t s u b d i v i s i o n s which come w i t h i n i t s s c o p e a r e already i n the public interest. The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n urged by r e s p o n d e n t commissioners and d e v e l o p e r s i s t h a t b e c a u s e t h e w r i t t e n p u b l i c i n t e r e s t f i n d i n g i s n o t mentioned i n s e c t i o n 1 1 - 3 8 6 6 ( 6 ) , t h e l e g i s l a t u r e must have i n t e n d e d t o c r e a t e a n e x c e p t i o n f o r minor s u b d i v i s i o n s r e q u i r i n g no p u b l i c i n t e r e s t d e t e r m i n a t i o n a t a l l , presumed o r w r i t t e n . I n view of t h e p u r p o s e s e c t i o n of t h e A c t , r e q u i r i n g w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t "whenever n e c e s s a r y " and t h e f a c t t h a t s e c t i o n 11-3862(8) d o e s n o t e x c e p t s u b d i v i s i o n s w i t h i n master p l a n s from t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t r e q u i r e m e n t b u t r a t h e r deems them t o b e i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , t h e argument t h a t a n e x c e p t i o n i s c r e a t e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ' s s i l e n c e on t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t r e q u i r e m e n t i n s e c t i o n 11-3866(6) i s d i f f i c u l t t o accept. T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s o upon c o n s i d e r a - t i o n of t h e g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s of s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n a p p l i c a b l e t o a s t a t u t e s u c h a s t h e S u b d i v i s i o n and P l a t t i n g Act. The p u r p o s e s e c t i o n d e c l a r e d t h a t t h e A c t i s i n t e n d e d t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e p u b l i c h e a l t h , s a f e t y , and g e n e r a l w e l f a r e : " I t i s t h e p u r p o s e of t h i s a c t t o promote t h e p u b l i c h e a l t h , s a f e t y , and g e n e r a l w e l f a r e by r e g u l a t i n g t h e s u b d i v i s i o n of l a n d ; t o p r e v e n t overcrowding of l a n d ; t o l e s s e n c o n g e s t i o n i n t h e s t r e e t s and highways; t o p r o v i d e f o r adeq u a t e l i g h t , a i r , w a t e r s u p p l y , sewage d i s p o s a l , p a r k s and r e c r e a t i o n a r e a s , i n g r e s s and e g r e s s , and o t h e r p u b l i c r e q u i r e m e n t s ; t o req u i r e development i n harmony w i t h t h e n a t u r a l environment; t o r e q u i r e t h a t whenever necess a r y , t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a p p r o v a l of s u b d i v i s i o n s be c o n t i n g e n t upon a w r i t t e n f i n d i n g of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t by t h e g o v e r n i n g body S e c t i o n 11-3860, R.C.M. 1947. . . ." L e g i s l a t i o n e n a c t e d f o r t h e promotion of p u b l i c h e a l t h , s a f e t y , and g e n e r a l w e l f a r e , i s e n t i t l e d t o " l i b e r a l c o n s t r u c - t i o n w i t h a view towards t h e accomplishment of i t s h i g h l y beneficent objectives". t i o n , 571.01 ( 4 t h Ed., 3 S u t h e r l a n d , S t a t u t o r y Construc1974). A s one c o u r t h a s s t a t e d : "No r u l e o f s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n i s more r e a d i l y a p p l i e d by t h e c o u r t s t h a n t h a t publ i c s t a t u t e s d e a l i n g w i t h t h e w e l f a r e of t h e whole p e o p l e a r e t o have a l i b e r a l c o n s t r u c tion." H a l l v . Union L i g h t , Heat & Power (E.D. Ky. 1 9 4 4 ) , 53 F.Supp. 817, 818-19. S e e a l s o Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. v. P u b l i c S e r v i c e Commission (D.C. App. 1 9 7 7 ) , 378 A.2d 1085, 1089; R a n q u i s t v . S t a c k l e r ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 3 I11.Dec. 1 7 1 , 370 N.E.2d 1198, 1203; New York S t a t e Board o f Pharmacy v . C e r t a i n A d u l t e r a t e d and Misbranded Drugs ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 393 N.Y.S.2d 447, A c c o r d i n g l y , " e x e m p t i o n s , p r o v i s o s , and e x c e p t i o n s a r e g e n e r a l l y g i v e n a narrow i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . " S t a t u t o r y C o n s t r u c t i o n , s u p r a , a t 571.01, 3 Sutherland, n. 3. In the S u b d i v i s i o n and P l a t t i n g Act t h e g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t a s u b d i v i s i o n must be found t o be i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t b e f o r e a g o v e r n i n g body may approve i t . This requirement i s i n t e n d e d t o f u l f i l l t h e A c t ' s o b j e c t i v e of e n s u r i n g t h a t t h e p u b l i c h e a l t h , s a f e t y and g e n e r a l w e l f a r e a r e p r o t e c t e d . T h a t o b j e c t i v e must b e t h e primary g u i d e t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e s t a t u t e . Thus, where no s p e c i f i c e x c e p t i o n t o t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t r e q u i r e m e n t i s mentioned i n s e c t i o n 1 1 3 8 6 6 ( 6 ) , t h e b e t t e r c o n c l u s i o n i s t h a t no s u c h e x c e p t i o n i s intended. T h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s b u t t r e s s e d by t h e 1977 l e g i s l a t u r e ' s a d d i t i o n of t h e word " a p p r o p r i a t e " t o t h e p u r p o s e s e c t i o n : " t o r e q u i r e t h a t whenever n e c e s s a r y , t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a p p r o v a l of s u b d i v i s i o n s be c o n t i n g e n t upon a w r i t t e n f i n d i n g of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t by t h e g o v e r n i n g body". (Emphasis a d d e d . ) The amendment a d d i n g "whenever n e c e s s a r y " , as d i s c u s s e d above, most n a t u r a l l y a p p l i e s t o t h e amendment t o s e c t i o n 11-3862, p r o v i d i n g t h a t c e r t a i n s u b d i v i s i o n s are deemed t o be i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , b e c a u s e b o t h amendments were p a r t of t h e s a m e b i l l . The word " a p p r o p r i a t e " modifying "approv- a l " s u g g e s t s t h a t a s i d e from t h o s e i n s t a n c e s i n which a w r i t t e n f i n d i n g o f p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i s n o t r e q u i r e d , t h e Act s t i l l p r o v i d e s f o r more t h a n one form of a p p r o v a l . The Act d o e s p r o v i d e f o r two t y p e s of a p p r o v a l p r o c e d u r e s , independ e n t of t h e r e v i e w o f s u b d i v i s i o n s which a r e deemed t o be i n the public interest. These a r e f u l l o r " f o r m a l " a p p r o v a l p r o c e d u r e s r e q u i r i n g a p u b l i c h e a r i n g and e n v i r o n m e n t a l assessment and t h e "summary" a p p r o v a l p r o c e d u r e s o u t l i n e d i n s e c t i o n 11-3866(6). The most n a t u r a l meaning of t h e c l a u s e i n t h e p u r p o s e s e c t i o n i s t h a t t h e " a p p r o p r i a t e " form of a p p r o v a l , whether t h a t b e f o r m a l a p p r o v a l o r summary a p p r o v a l , i s " c o n t i n g e n t upon a w r i t t e n f i n d i n g of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t by t h e g o v e r n i n g body." W e hold t h e r e f o r e t h a t t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t f i n d i n g mandated by s e c t i o n 11-3866(4) a p p l i e s t o "minor" s u b d i v i s i o n s which q u a l i f y f o r r e v i e w under s e c t i o n 1 1 - 3 8 6 6 ( 6 ) . I n i t s second i s s u e , a p p e l l a n t School ~ i s t r i c c o n t e n d s t t h a t t h e s u b d i v i s i o n s d o n o t q u a l i f y f o r summary r e v i e w under s e c t i o n 11-3866(6) b e c a u s e t h e o n l y a c c e s s t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l l o t s i s by p r i v a t e easement. T h i s , it a r g u e s , d o e s n o t m e e t t h e s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t of " p r o p e r a c c e s s t o a l l lots". T h i s m a t t e r would be of c o n c e r n i n t h i s a p p e a l b u t t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n h a s been r e n d e r e d moot. The e x c e p t i o n s t o s e c t i o n 11-3866(4) which a r e c r e a t e d by s e c t i o n 1 1 - 3 8 6 6 ( 6 ) ( c ) a r e t h e d e l e t i o n of t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g and e n v i r o n m e n t a l a s s e s s m e n t r e q u i r e m e n t . I n t h i s case, however, public hearings were held on January 24 and February 2, 1978, before the Ravalli County Plat Committee and the Ravalli County Planning Board respectively. The Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences has also prepared a full environmental assessment of the proposed subdivisions. In view of these actions and this Court's holding on the public interest finding issue, it is clear a ruling on whether the proposed subdivisions qualify for summary approval under section 11-3866 would be of no avail. All the actions required for approval of major subdivisions, except for the public interest finding, have already been taken. Accordingly, we decline to rule on appellant's second issue. The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the Board of County Commissioners of Ravalli County is hereby directed to make written findings in accordance with section 11-3866(4), R.C.M. 1947, to determine whether these proposed subdivisions are in the public int We Concur: Z&xSbc,& Chief Justice 0 . a ~ Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, District Judge, sitting in place of Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea

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.