YELLOWSTONE VALLEY ELECTRIC v OSTE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

79-24IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 YELLOWSTONE VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, THE MONTANA POWER COMPANY, a corporation, Intervenor and Appellant, DUANE OSTERMILLER, THE MILWAUKEE MOTOR TRANSPORTATION CO., a colrporation, and GETTER TRUCKING, INC., a corporation, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, County of Yellowstone. Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Olsen, Christensen & Gannett, Billings, Montana Paul Olsen argued, Billings, Montana John Carl argued, Butte, Montana For Respondents: Anderson, Brown, Gerbase, Cebull & Jones, Billings, Montana Joseph Gerbase argued, Billings,, Montana Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Submitted: February 22, 1980 ~ecided :MAk 2 18 9a Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. c his i s a n a p p e a l from a p o r t i o n of a judgment of a Yellowstone County D i s t r i c t C o u r t r u l i n g t h a t s e c t i o n 69-4603, MCA, d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e a t a k i n g o f p r o p e r t y w i t h o u t due p r o c e s s though i t r e q u i r e s e l e c t r i c u t i l i t i e s and r u r a l e l e c t r i c cooperatives t o provide wire-raising s e r v i c e s w i t h o u t reimbursement. Plaintiff-appellant, Yellowstone V a l l e y E l e c t r i c Cooper- a t i v e , Inc. i s a r u r a l e l e c t r i c cooperative providing e l e c t r i c s e r v i c e t o r u r a l c u s t o m e r s by means of a n e l e c t r i c t r a n s m i s s i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n network. Many o f t h e l i n e s c o n s t i t u t i n g t h i s network c r o s s p u b l i c highways and s t r e e t s . Respondents e a c h c o n d u c t e n t e r p r i s e s i n v o l v i n g t h e moving of o v e r s i z e d equipment o r s t r u c t u r e s upon p u b l i c highways and s t r e e t s . The moving a c t i v i t i e s o f r e s p o n d e n t s o f t e n r e q u i r e t h e r a i s i n g of e l e c t r i c t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s . MCA, S e c t i o n 69-4-603, p r o v i d e s t h a t u t i l i t i e s and c o o p e r a t i v e s a r e r e q u i r e d t o r a i s e o r remove t h e i r t r a n s m i s s i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n l i n e s , when o v e r s i z e d equipment and s t r u c t u r e s a r e moved, i n o r d e r t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e p a s s a g e of s u c h o v e r s i z e d l o a d s . P l a i n t i f f p e t i t i o n e d t h e Yellowstone County D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f r e g a r d i n g r e s p o n d e n t s ' moving e n t e r p r i s e s . P l a i n t i f f s o u g h t t o have s e c t i o n 69-4-603, MCA, d e c l a r e d u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a s a d e n i a l of e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n and due p r o c e s s . The Montana Power Company was g r a n t e d p e r m i s s i o n t o i n t e r v e n e and a l s o p e t i t i o n e d f o r s i m i l a r declaratory r e l i e f . An e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g w a s waived by t h e p a r t i e s and b r i e f s were s u b m i t t e d t o t h e c o u r t . On September 1 0 , 1979, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r u l e d t h a t a p o r t i o n of t h e challenged s t a t u t e v i o l a t e d equal p r o t e c t i o n require- ments and was, t h e r e f o r e , u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . The u n c o n s t i t u - t i o n a l p o r t i o n of t h e s t a t u t e was a 1951 amendment which p r o v i d e d t h a t p e r s o n s , f i r m s , o r c o r p o r a t i o n s engaged i n moving o v e r s i z e d s t r u c t u r e s w i t h i n t h e l i m i t s of a c i t y o r town pay a l l n e c e s s a r y and r e a s o n a b l e e x p e n s e s of r a i s i n g o r c u t t i n g w i r e s and removing p o l e s . The amendment was h e l d u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l because i t d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between i n s i d e and o u t s i d e c i t y o r town l i m i t s with respect t o costs. While d e t e r m i n i n g t h i s p o r t i o n of the s t a t u t e unconstitutional, the c o u r t a l s o held t h a t the r e m a i n i n g p o r t i o n s of t h e s t a t u t e c o n t i n u e d i n f u l l f o r c e and e f f e c t . Without t h e u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s o , t h e s t a t u t e r e t u r n e d t o i t s pre-1951 amendment p o s t u r e and was i n t e r p r e t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a s r e q u i r i n g u t i l i t i e s and c o o p e r a t i v e s t o p r o v i d e w i r e - r a i s i n g and c u t t i n g s e r v i c e w i t h o u t reimbursement i n a l l c i r c u m s t a n c e s . I t i s from t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t p l a i n t i f f and i n t e r v e n o r a p p e a l . Three i s s u e s a r e r a i s e d f o r o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n upon appeal: (1) Was t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o r r e c t i n i n t e r p r e t i n g s e c t i o n 69-4-603, MCA, a s r e q u i r i n g u t i l i t i e s and coopera- t i v e s i n a l l circumstances t o provide wire-raising and c u t t i n g s e r v i c e s w i t h o u t reimbursement? (2) Does s e c t i o n 69-4-603, MCA, u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y a l l o w p r o p e r t y t o be t a k e n f o r t h e p r i v a t e u s e of a p r i v a t e party? (3) I s s e c t i o n 69-4-603, MCA, u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l because i t i s a n u n r e a s o n a b l e e x e r c i s e of t h e p o l i c e power? S e c t i o n 69-4-603, MCA, i s s e t f o r t h below i n i t s e n . t i r e t y w i t h t h e 1951 amendment, which w a s h e l d u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l by t h e D i s t r i c t Court, underscored: " ( 1 ) I t s h a l l t h e n be t h e d u t y of any p e r s o n , f i r m , o r c o r p o r a t i o n owning o r o p e r a t i n g s a i d p o l e s o r w i r e s a f t e r s e r v i c e of n o t i c e , as r e q u i r e d by 69-4-602, t o f u r n i s h competent workmen o r linemen t o remove s u c h p o l e s o r r a i s e o r c u t s u c h w i r e s a s w i l l be n e c e s s a r y t o f a c i l i t a t e removing such house, b u i l d i n g , d e r r i c k o r o t h e r structure. " ( 2 ) N p e r s o n , f i r m , o r c o r p o r a t i o n engaged i n o moving any house, b u i l d i n g , d e r r i c k , o r o t h e r s t r u c t u r e s h a l l r a i s e , c u t o r i n any way i n t e r f e r e w i t h any such p o l e s o r w i r e s , u n l e s s t h e p e r s o n s o r a u t h o r i t i e s owning o r h a v i n g c o n t r o l of t h e same s h a l l r e f u s e t o do s o a f t e r h a v i n g been n o t i f i e d , a s r e q u i r e d by 69-4-602; t h e n , o n l y competent and e x p e r i e n c e d workmen o r l i n e men s h a l l be employed i n such work, and i n s u c h c a s e t h e n e c e s s a r y and r e a s o n a b l e e x p e n s e s h a l l be p a i d by t h e owners of t h e p o l e s and w i r e s h a n d l e d ; p r o v i d e d , however, - - p e r s o n , t h a t any f i r m o r c o r p o r a t i o n engaged i n moving s u c h strut-t u r e w i t h i n t h e - -s o f a n y c i t y - limit o r town s h a l l pay a l l and - - n e c e s s a r y - r e a s o n a b l e e x p e n s e of raising c u t t i n q s u c h w i r e s o r removing s u c h p o l e s . The work s h a l l b e d o n e i n a c a r e f u l and workmanlike manner, and t h e p o l e s and w i r e s s h a l l be promptly r e p l a c e d and damages t h e r e t o promptly r e p a i r e d . " or 7 The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n t h i s c a s e c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e above s t a t u t e a s a n e x e r c i s e of t h e p o l i c e power, a n d , a c c o r d i n g l y , h e l d t h a t t h e burden o f any e x p e n s e s c r e a t e d by t h e s t a t u t e c o u l d b e imposed upon u t i l i t i e s and c o o p e r a t i v e s w i t h o u t reimbursement. I n reaching i t s conclusion, t h e c o u r t noted t h a t t h e s t a t u t e " w a s p a r t o f a 1929 enactment . . . which made no e x p r e s s p r o v i s i o n a s t o who w a s t o s t a n d t h e c o s t of w i r e - r a i s i n g s e r v i c e s e x c e p t i n t h e i n s t a n c e when t h e mover d i d t h e work b e c a u s e of t h e o w n e r ' s r e f u s a l t o do i t when properly requested." Faced w i t h d e t e r m i n i n g t h e q u e s t i o n of c o s t s where t h e r e was owner compliance, however, t h e c o u r t found t h a t c o s t s c o u l d be imposed upon u t i l i t i e s and cooperat i v e s because t h e s t a t u t e was a n e x e r c i s e of t h e p o l i c e power. There w a s no need f o r compensation. C o u r t , s p e a k i n g of t h e s t a t u t e , s t a t e d : The D i s t r i c t ". . . Having t h e p u r p o s e of p r e v e n t i n g uncont r o l l e d and u n s a f e i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h e l e c t r i c s e r v i c e , i t i s w e l l w i t h i n t h e l i m i t s of a p e r m i s s i b l e e x e r c i s e of p o l i c e power. A s s u c h , t h e f a c t t h a t i t r e s u l t s i n an i m p o s i t i o n upon t h e u s e o f t h e u t i l i t y o w n e r ' s p r o p e r t y o r imposes a burden o f expense upon t h e u t i l i t y d o e s n o t i n i t s e l f v i o l a t e due p r o c e s s o r c o n s t i t u t e t h e taking of p r i v a t e property f o r p u b l i c purposes w i t h o u t j u s t compensation. . ." A p p e l l a n t and i n t e r v e n o r a t t a c k t h e h o l d i n g s of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e r e on two a l t e r n a t i v e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g r o u n d s . On one hand, t h e y a r g u e t h a t , i f t h e s t a t u t e i s a n e x e r c i s e of t h e p o l i c e power, i t i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l because i t i s a n unreasonable regulation: i t u n r e a s o n a b l y and a r b i t r a r i l y imposes c o s t s upon p a r t i e s which do n o t o c c a s i o n t h e need It is f o r r a i s i n g o r c u t t i n g e l e c t r i c transmission l i n e s . contended t h a t i t i s more r e a s o n a b l e t o impose c o s t s upon t h e movers and t h e i r c l i e n t s . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , a p p e l l a n t and i n t e r v e n o r a r g u e t h a t t h e s t a t u t e i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l because it allows f o r a "taking" of u t i l i t y property f o r t h e p r i v a t e use of another. I t i s submitted t h a t t h e a c t i v i t y of w i r e - r a i s i n g o r c u t t i n g c o n s t i t u t e s a temporary d e p r i v a t i o n of p r o p e r t y which i s conducted s o l e l y f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f moving companies and t h e i r c l i e n t s . The s t a t u t e , t h e r e - f o r e , i s a n u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l e x e r c i s e o f t h e power of e m i n e n t domain. The t h r e s h o l d i n q u i r y i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e s e arguments i s i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether s e c t i o n 69-4-603, MCA, i s an exercise o f t h e p o l i c e power o r , r a t h e r , sounds i n t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f eminent domain. The p o l i c e power of t h e s t a t e , of c o u r s e , i s t h a t which e n a b l e s s t a t e s t o p a s s r e g u l a t i o n s f o r t h e 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 of t h e p e o p l e . N. P u b l i c S e r v i c e Comrn. v. N e w O r l e a n s ( 1 9 3 0 ) , 281 U.S. S.Ct. 449, 74 L.Ed. 0. 682, 50 1115; S t a t e v . Penny ( 1 9 1 0 ) , 42 Mont. 118, 1 1 P. 727; B i l l i n g s P r o p e r t i e s , I n c . v . Yellowstone 1 Co. ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 1 4 4 Mont. 25, 394 P.2d 182. I n t h e e x e r c i s e of t h e p o l i c e power, due p r o c e s s r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment may b e m e t w i t h o u t j u s t compensation. Eminent domain, however, i s t h e r i g h t of t h e s t a t e t o t a k e p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y f o r p u b l i c u s e . Helena Power T r a n s m i s s i o n Co. v . S p r a t t ( 1 9 0 7 ) , 35 Mont. 108, 88 P. 773; s e c t i o n 70-30-101, MCA. I n t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h e power o f e m i n e n t domain, j u s t compensation i s r e q u i r e d . I n d e t e r m i n i n g whether o u r s t a t u t e i s an e x e r c i s e of t h e p o l i c e power o r e m i n e n t domain, w e n o t e a s p l i t of a u t h o r i t y among o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s f a c i n g t h e same i s s u e w i t h r e s p e c t t o s i m i l a r s t a t u t e s and o r d i n a n c e s . 83 A.L.R.2d 464 ( 1 9 6 2 ) . See Annot., I n one l i n e o f cases, o r d i n a n c e s and s t a t u t e s a l l o w i n g f o r t h e a d j u s t m e n t of w i r e s and p o l e s i n moving o v e r s i z e d o b j e c t s have been u p h e l d a s v a l i d e x e r c i s e s of t h e p o l i c e power. (Kan. 1 9 1 6 ) , 162 P. (Neb. 1 9 1 6 ) , 1 6 1 N.W. (N.C. 1 9 1 5 ) , 84 S.E. 1 9 0 7 ) , 80 N.E. 961. S e e , M i s s o u r i Pac. Ry. v. S p r o u l 293; S t a t e v . Omaha & C. B. 170; Weeks v. C a r o l i n a T e l S t . Ry. Co. & Tel. Co. 812; I n d i a n a Ry. Co. v. C a l v e r t ( I n d . The moving o f b u i l d i n g s and o t h e r o v e r s i z e d o b j e c t s i n t h e s e c a s e s h a s been r e c o g n i z e d a s a r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y p u b l i c u s e , and t h e r i g h t s of t h e p e o p l e t o u s e t h e s t r e e t s have been h e l d s u p e r i o r t o t h e r i g h t s of u t i l i t i e s t o l o c a t e t h e i r f a c i l i t i e s upon such streets. I n a n o t h e r l i n e o f c a s e s , o r d i n a n c e s and s t a t u t e s have been h e l d t o be t a k i n g s under t h e law of eminent domain. Ex P a r t e Ashworth ( A l a . 1 9 2 0 ) , 86 So. 84; Edison Light & Elec. Power Co. of S t . P a u l v. ~ l o m q u i s t (Minn. 1 9 1 1 ) , 185 F . 615; K i b b i e T e l . Co. v . Landphere (Mich. 1 9 0 8 ) , 115 N.W. 2 4 4 ; Northwestern T e l . Exch. Co. v . Anderson ( N . D . 1 9 0 4 ) , 98 N.W. 706. I n t h e s e c a s e s , t h e moving of o v e r s i z e d o b j e c t s h a s been h e l d t o be a u s e which i s p r i v a t e , permiss i v e , and e x t r a o r d i n a r y , conducted o n l y f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f a mover and h i s c l i e n t and s u b j e c t t o t h e v e s t e d and s u p e r i o r r i g h t s of u t i l i t i e s . Having reviewed t h e s e a u t h o r i t i e s , w e f i n d t h a t o u r s t a t u t e i s a n e x e r c i s e of t h e p o l i c e power and d o e s n o t sound i n e m i n e n t domain. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s c h a r a c t e r i z a - t i o n o f s e c t i o n 69-4-603, MCA, w a s c o r r e c t : the s t a t u t e is a r e g u l a t i o n e n a c t e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n t h e e x e r c i s e of t h e p o l i c e power aimed a t p r o t e c t i n g 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 . v i t a l public interests. Here, t h e s t a t u t e s e r v e s s e v e r a l F i r s t , p u b l i c s a f e t y i s concerned. The s t a t u t e i s a n o b v i o u s a t t e m p t t o a v o i d t h e o c c u r r e n c e on t h e p a r t o f t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c of h i g h v o l t a g e e l e c t r i c a l accidents. The s t a t u t e s t a t e s t h a t " o n l y competent and e x p e r i e n c e d workmen o r linemen" may r a i s e o r c u t w i r e s . Second, t h e s t a t u t e c o n f e r s a p u b l i c b e n e f i t . Where t h e s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s f o r a c o n t r o l l e d method of accommodating a m o v e r ' s need s o t h a t t h e r e i s prompt r e p l a c e m e n t and r e p a i r , t h e r e i s minimal i n t e r f e r e n c e i n p r o v i d i n g e l e c t r i c a l serThird, t h e public i n t e r e s t i s a l s o vice t o the public. s e r v e d i n t h a t t h e s t a t u t e a l l o w s f o r a r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y p u b l i c u s e , t h e moving of o v e r s i z e d o b j e c t s upon t h e p u b l i c highways of t h e s t a t e . Finally, the statute r e c o g n i z e s t h e r i g h t of t h e p u b l i c t o u s e t h e highways. Hawn v. Kansas G a s & E l e c t r i c Co. (Kan. 1 9 2 7 ) , 252 P . 245; S i p u l t v . C i t y o f P r a t t (Kan. 1 9 4 9 ) , 2 1 2 P.2d 2 2 1 . The s t a t u t e d o e s n o t i n v o l v e t h e a p p r o p r i a t i o n of a property r i g h t o r a 'taking' under t h e laws of e m i n e n t domain i n any t r a d i t i o n a l s e n s e . See, In locating their faci- l i t i e s upon a p u b l i c right-of-way, u t i l i t i e s and coopera- t i v e s a r e c o n f e r r e d a p r o p e r t y r i g h t which, by i t s v e r y n a t u r e , i s s u b j e c t t o o t h e r competing f r a n c h i s e s and p r i v i leges. The easement which i s o b t a i n e d i s n o t a n a b s o l u t e p r o p e r t y r i g h t ; t h e r e i s no r i g h t c o n f e r r e d upon u t i l i t i e s t o have t h e i r f a c i l i t i e s occupy a p a r t i c u l a r l o c a t i o n . New O r l e a n s G a s l i g h t Co. v . Drainage Comr~~'s f New O r l e a n s o ( 1 9 0 5 ) , 197 U.S. 453, 25 S.Ct. 471, 49 L.Ed. Burns ( 1 9 6 0 ) , 138 Mont. 268, 357 P.2d 22. 831; J o n e s v . Where o t h e r competing i n t e r e s t s and f r a n c h i s e s become i n v o l v e d , a u t i l i t y may be f o r c e d t o g i v e up a p a r t i c u l a r l o c a t i o n o f i t s f a c i l i t i e s , and r e a s o n a b l e i n t e r f e r e n c e may b e n e c e s s a r y and proper. S o u t h e r n B e l l T e l . & T e l . Co. v . W i l l i a m s Bros. 1 9 3 2 ) , 1 4 1 So. 835. (La.cw The s t a t u t e i s t h e r e f o r e a n e x e r c i s e of t h e p o l i c e power and eminent domain i s i n a p p l i c a b l e . A p p e l l a n t and i n t e r v e n o r u r g e t h a t t h e s t a t u t e i s unc o n s t i t u t i o n a l even i f i t i s deemed a n e x e r c i s e of t h e p o l i c e power. They c o n t e n d t h a t t h e s t a t u t e i s a n unrea- s o n a b l e r e g u l a t i o n b e c a u s e i t a r b i t r a r i l y imposes t h e c o s t s of w i r e - r a i s i n g and c u t t i n g upon p a r t i e s who do n o t o c c a s i o n t h e need f o r t h a t a c t i v i t y . They submit t h a t it would be much more r e a s o n a b l e t o r e q u i r e r e s p o n d e n t s and t h e i r c l i e n t s t o pay f o r t h e c o s t s o f w i r e - r a i s i n g and c u t t i n g . I t i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a p o l i c e power r e g u l a t i o n must be r e a s o n a b l y a d a p t e d t o i t s p u r p o s e and must i n j u r e o r impair property r i g h t s only t o t h e e x t e n t reasonably necessary t o preserve the public welfare. Garden S p o t Market, I n c . v. Byrne ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 1 4 1 Mont. 382, 378 P.2d 220; Freeman v. ~ o a r d of Adjustment ( 1 9 3 4 ) , 97 Mont. 342, 34 P.2d 534. he s t a n d a r d of r e a s o n a b l e n e s s i s t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l measure of t h e p r o p e r e x e r c i s e of t h e p o l i c e power. I n c . v. Yellowstone Co., (1927) , 79 Mont. Billings Properties, s u p r a ; B e t t e y v. C i t y of S i d n e y 314, 257 P. 1007; L e i s c h n e r v. C i t y of ~ i l l i n g s( 1 9 5 9 ) , 135 Mont. 109, 337 P.2d 359. It is a l s o w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t , a s a g e n e r a l r u l e , a c t s conducted i n t h e p r o p e r e x e r c i s e of p o l i c e power do n o t c o n s t i t u t e a t a k i n g of p r o p e r t y and do n o t e n t i t l e t h e owner of such p r o p e r t y t o compensation f o r t h e r e g u l a t i o n o r impairment t h e r e o f . Compensation i s due, however, i n c a s e s which exceed r e g u l a t i o n o r impairment and t h e r e i s a n a p p r o p r i a t i o n of p r o p e r t y which amounts t o a t a k i n g o r d e p r i v a t i o n of p r o p e r t y f o r p u b l i c use. 16 Am.Jur.2d C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law S586. I n t h i s c a s e , t h e l i n e s of a u t i l i t y o r c o o p e r a t i v e a r e momentarily r a i s e d o r s e v e r e d t o a l l o w t h e p a s s a g e of b u i l d i n g s o r o t h e r o v e r s i z e d o b j e c t s upon t h e p u b l i c s t r e e t s . Though t h e r e may be a temporary i n t e r f e r e n c e o r i n t e r r u p t i o n t o customer s e r v i c e and i n c o n v e n i e n c e o r h a r d s h i p t o t h e u t i l i t y , t h e p r o p e r t y of t h e u t i l i t y o r c o o p e r a t i v e i s i n no way condemned i n any permanent s e n s e . A p p e l l a n t and i n t e r - v e n o r r e l y on two c a s e s f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a temporary d e p r i v a t i o n of p r o p e r t y may c o n s t i t u t e a " t a k i n g " . F u e n t e s v . Shevin ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 407 U.S. L.Ed.2d U.S. 67, 92 S e c t . 1983, 32 556; S n i a d a c h v. Family F i n a n c e Corp. 337, 89 S.Ct. 1820, 2 3 L.Ed.2d See, ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 395 Those c a s e s , however, i n v o l v e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y b e i n g a t t a c h e d under g a r n i s h m e n t o r r e p l e v i n s t a t u t e s s i m p l y upon a n e x p a r t e a p p l i c a t i o n t o a c o u r t c l e r k w i t h o u t a h e a r i n g and are f a c t u a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e s i t u a t i o n h e r e . In this c a s e , t h e s t a t u t e amounts t o a r e g u l a t i o n o r an impairment of u t i l i t y p r o p e r t y and n o t a n a c t u a l t a k i n g o r a p p r o p r i a t i o n of p r o p e r t y f o r t h e p r i v a t e u s e o f a n o t h e r . W e find, therefore, t h a t the s t a t u t e i s a reasonable e x e r c i s e o f t h e p o l i c e power. F u r t h e r , w e f i n d t h a t it i s n o t u n r e a s o n a b l e t o impose t h e c o s t s o f w i r e - r a i s i n g o r c u t t i n g upon u t i l i t i e s and c o o p e r a t i v e s . Imposing c o s t s upon u t i l i t i e s and c o o p e r a t i v e s i s p e r h a p s t h e most e f f e c t i v e way o f s p r e a d i n g t h e b u r d e n s c r e a t e d by t h e s t a t u t e . I n t h i s way, consumers s h a r e b o t h t h e b u r d e n s and t h e g e n e r a l b e n e f i t s which t h e s t a t u t e i n t e n d e d and i s c a l c u l a t e d t o secure. Imposing c o s t s upon r e s p o n d e n t s and o t h e r moving companies would b e t o o burdensome and would, i n e f f e c t , make t h e a c t i v i t y o f moving b u i l d i n g s and o t h e r o v e r s i z e d o b j e c t s cost-prohibitive. A c c o r d i n g l y , w e a f f i r m t h e judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court. W e concur: Chief J u s t i c e Qdh% Justices C/

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.