 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Director of the Office of State Lands & Investments v. Merbanco6/6/2003
agency to act. Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Association v. State, 645 P.2d 1163 (Wyo. 1982). If the relief requested "concerns the constitutionality or interpretation of a statute upon which the administrative action is, or is to be, based, the [declaratory judgment] action should be entertained." Id. at 1168. To force the parties to expend the time and resources to complete the board's process only to subject the final product to possible jeopardy is not sound policy. In addition, the lack of certainty concerning the viability of the exchange option may influence the nature of the final decision by the board, an equally problematic result with the potential of denying the various stakeholders the benefits they might otherwise receive.
Nevertheless, the proponent of a declaratory judgment must still present a fully justiciable controversy. As we stated in Brimmer, 521 P.2d at 578 (quoting Sorenson, 496 P.2d at 517), a four-part showing is required:
"First, a justiciable controversy requires parties having existing and genuine, as distinguished from theoretical, rights or interests. Second, the controversy must be one upon which the judgment of the court may effectively operate, as distinguished from a debate or argument evoking a purely political, administrative, philosophical or academic conclusion. Third, it must be a controversy the judicial determination of which will have the force and effect of a final judgment in law or decree in equity upon the rights, status or other legal relationships of one or more of the real parties in interest, or, wanting these qualities[,] be of such great and overriding public moment as to constitute the legal equivalent of all of them. Finally, the proceedings must be genuinely adversary in character and not a mere disputation, but advanced with sufficient militancy to engender a thorough research and analysis of the major issues."
The state contends the challengers cannot meet the first requirement of a justiciable controversy-that they have existing and genuine rights or interests at stake. Pursuant to the substantial public interest and importance doctrine, we have found
standing where we ordinarily would not in the following instances: Washakie County School District Number One [ v. Herschler ], 606 P.2d 310 [(Wyo. 1980)] (constitutionality of school financing); Memorial Hospital of Laramie County [ v. Department of Revenue and Taxation of State of Wyoming ], 770 P.2d 223 [(Wyo. 1989)] (tax exempt status of hospital); State eX rel. Wyoming Association of Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors v. Sullivan, 798 P.2d 826 (Wyo. 1990) (constitutionality of the Wyoming Professional Review Panel Act); Board of County Commissioners of the County of Laramie v. Laramie County School District Number One, 884 P.2d 946 (Wyo. 1994) (entitlement of school district to interest on school district funds held by county treasurer); and Management Council of the Wyoming Legislature [ v. Geringer ], 953 P.2d 839 [(Wyo. 1998)] (constitutional scope of governor's veto power).
Jolley v. State Loan and Investment Board, 2002 WY 7, , 38 P.3d 1073, (Wyo. 2002).
In a similar context, we addressed standing in a challenge to the constitutionality of the public school financing statutes and stated:
Standing is a concept used to determine whether a party is sufficiently affected to insure that a justiciable controversy is presented to the court. It is a necessary and useful tool to be used by courts in ferreting out those cases which ask the courts to render advisory opinions or decide an artificial or academic controversy without there being a palpable injury to be remedied. However, it is not a rigid or dogmat
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|