Court Opinion

ID: 9601825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:50:00.954089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:06.855954
License: Public Domain

CROFT, District Judge1
(concurring).
I concur. However, in doing so I wish to note the 1977 legislation2 by which the legislature gave to the tax division of the district court the exclusive jurisdiction over all appeals from and petitions for review of decisions by the state tax commission rendered after formal hearings before the commission. A party aggrieved by a decision of *645the commission under the statute may choose to waive the right of review by the tax division of the district court and apply for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in which event such party must state in the application for the writ that the party is waiving the right of review and trial de novo in the tax division of the district court. The petition filed does not so state. I do not believe this failure is jurisdictional but do believe that the procedural requirements of the statutes should be followed.

. Judge Croft did not sit with the Court during oral argument but is participating in the decision at the request of Chief Justice Crockett. In doing so Judge Croft has reviewed the record on appeal, read the briefs and listened to the tape recording of the oral arguments made at the hearings before the Court.

. Sec. 59-24-1 et seq., U.C.A.1953.