Document: 429 U.S. 651 97 S.Ct. 828 51 L.Ed.2d 116 CONCERNED CITIZENS OF SOUTHERN OHIO, INC., et al.v.PINE CREEK CONSERVANCY DISTRICT al. No. 76-667. Feb. 22, 1977. PER CURIAM. 1 Chapter 6101 of the Ohio Revised Code establishes procedures for organization and governance conservancy districts, political subdivisions State invested with power to carry out flood prevention control measures. The statute provides creation a court each time that petition is duly filed propose new district. It court's responsibility first evaluate desirability establishing proposed district then, if it decides create district, assume ultimate administering A may include territory from one or more counties, composed judge common pleas in county having within 2 In 1966 Pine Creek Conservancy District was established accordance set forth chapter 6101. Appellants, who collectively are residents, property owners, taxpayers District, brought present action, seeking declaratory injunctive relief alleging, inter alia, unconstitutional. 3 Appellants leveled three constitutional challenges against Court, those claims have been renewed instant appeal. First, they argue violates due process courts make decision as whether districts will administer should be formed. Since judges entitled special compensation their work on courts, appellants contend financial incentive declare organized that, therefore, persons objecting formation deprived hearing before an impartial judicial officer. See Ward v. Monroeville, 409 57, 93 80, 34 267 (1972); Tumey Ohio, 273 510, 47 437, 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927). Second, composition one-man, one-vote principle Baker Carr, 369 186, 82 691, 7 663 (1962), Reynolds Sims, 377 533, 84 1362, 12 506 (1964), because selected without regard size population represent. Third, permits disenfranchisement freeholders affected by creates presumption local body, such township, represents views all its jurisdiction whenever supports proposing 4 three-judge rejected these single ground were foreclosed Orr Allen, 248 35, 39 23, 63 109 (1918), aff'g 245 F. 486 (W.D.Ohio 1917), case which we equal protection attack challenged here. C-1-75-5 (W.D.Ohio, July 6, 1976). 5 None issues presented this raised passed upon Orr. appellant four none had anything do argued denied him review, authorized impairment existing contracts, improperly conferred legislative powers judiciary, taking compensation. Our three-page memorandum opinion did not purport go beyond case. By no stretch imagination can our thought silently dealt arose decided later cases Ward, Tumey, Sims. 6 Because below gave independent consideration relied exclusively Orr, although considered now presented, apparent merits appellants' never fully any federal court. Without offering view relative merit contentions, fair say insubstantial. We therefore reverse remand full appellants. So ordered. 8 THE CHIEF JUSTICE would note probable give plenary 9 Mr. Justice REHNQUIST, whom POWELL STEVENS join, dissenting. 10 action Court takes today appeal unexplained very likely inexplicable. heard rendered final merits. concluded affirmance principles stare decisis, compelled rejection challenges. 11 sets every detailed today, clear it. On here absence relevant intervening circumstances, see, e. g., Guste Jackson, 399, 657, 50 638; Town Lockport Citizens Community Action, 423 808, 96 11, 46 24 (1975); Weinberger Jobst, 419 811, 95 26, 42 38 (1974), procedural irregularities Court's case, Westby Doe, 420 968, 1385, 43 648 (1975), ordinarily either affirms, modifies, reverses judgment Court. But has chosen courses. Disagreeing scope remands "full consideration" based since teeth obvious fact consider them.1 I agree does afford adequate basis affirming am nearly certain decision. even though Members agreed authority rejecting (1927), amounts nothing than disagreement reasoning treat now, rather "remanding" editing law student's draft review note.2 Believing reach decide claims, shall state briefly my reasons concluding sufficiently substantial warrant setting argument, affirmed. 13 raise objections. Two them connected sense relate operation but, rather, objections solely district.3 contentions officer.4 second object body supported petition. 14 formed 1966, two available at time. This lawsuit until 1975. Absent some persuasive demonstration reason delay, leisurely governmental barred laches. "There must conscience, good faith, reasonable diligence, call into court." McKnight Taylor, How. 161, 168, 86 (1843). seek merely reapportionment voting but declaration nullity. Surely organ government situations where "both nature claim situation parties diligence." Benedict City New York, 250 321, 328, 476, 478, 1005 (1919). There diligence here, neither pleadings nor proof intimates excuse delay. 15 These challenges, believe, fare better first, again constitutionality, under supra, formed, since, § 141.07 Ann. (Page 1975 Supp.), receive extra Neither (1972), direct bearing constitutionality procedure forming As made clear, involved quintessentially functions, U.S., 522, S.Ct., 440.5 Here, however, determinations, judges, essentially nature. Holmes recognized, determination facts necessarily implicate same considerations adjudicative facts. Londoner Denver, 210 373, 28 708, 52 1103 (1908); Bi-Metallic Investment Co. Bd. Equalization, 239 441, 36 141, 60 372 (1915). know objection through executive giving opposing citizens chance air objections, see Houck Little River Dist., 254, 262, 58, 60, 266 (1915) followed Those simply insured additional check formation, already petitioned town governments, "impartial" officer offends right 16 "formation" challenge, appellants, raises following issue: 17 "Section 6101.05, Code, submits freeholders, creation. only step entire calls participation support opposition, residents landowners, execution projects. . Section signed governing public corporation When signs petition, conclusively presumed favor effect, living townships village opposed oppose district." Jurisdictional Statement 13-14. 18 challenge wholly suggest nothing, arguably issue constitutionally vote on. Thus, allowed bodies respective form there surely populace vote, 264, 61. To extent protests "discrimination" whose "were district," wrong conclusive presumption, when "all Rather, towns remain free petitions circulated, appear "object incorporation said ." Rev. 6101.08 Supp.). They Constitution. 19 other statutory scheme, limited selection progeny. decisions apply Wells Edwards, 347 F.Supp. 453 (M.D.La.1972), aff'd, 1095, 904, 679 (1973). majority functions admittedly judicial, §§ 6101.07, 6101.28, 6101.33 one-man-one-vote squarely Wells. With respect remaining nature, granted itself so narrowly confined play strict application doctrines. control, exercise "general powers," phrase defined Avery Midland County, 390 474, 88 1114, 20 45 (1968). "special purpose," much like found Salyer Land Tulare Water 410 719, 1224, 35 659 (1973), and, likewise, "the popular election requirements enunciated (v. (1964)) succeeding inapplicable Id., 730, 1231. situation, both counties interest, evidence discrimination group, Williams Rhodes, 393 89 5, 21 (1968), permissible, supra; cf. Hunter Pittsburgh, 207 40, 151 (1907).6 unable conclude "wholly irrelevant achievement regulation's objectives", Kotch Port Pilot Comm'rs, 330 552, 556, 67 910, 912, 91 1093 (1947), also reject affirm Appellants' reply brief amply argues controlling, concerned aware arguments relies remand. order entered states: matter came agreement briefs various sections dealing Districts." thus canvass going merits, albeit favored contention precluded entering record, presenting pertinent legal argument. Both parties, essence, wished Nor hint factual record shape preclude loss explain curious named plaintiffs allege complaint recitations might indicate least failure residency standing questionable. Once particular way another, pay remains suggests related attack: "To payment per diem, course, treasury full. income comes assessments appraisals approve disapprove .." Yet remote impact funding coffers, Dugan 277 61, 48 439, 72 784 (1928). payments paid assessments, responsibility, instance, board directors court, 6101.45, 6101.48 further worthy summary affirmance. Gibson Berryhill, 411 564, 579, 1689, 1698, 488 proceeding criminal, discussed "pecuniary interest members sufficient substance disqualify (Emphasis supplied.) adjudicative, criminal stigmatizing. told lies partially Lawrence County Scioto County. 1970 56,868 76,951, respectively. "(i)n instance included told, how many reside county. seem follow fail burden showing judges" approximated "to number people represent, land represent."

Category: 8