Court Opinion

ID: 9553809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:35:29.079663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:17.275349
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent and would affirm the judgment of the district court. Plaintiffs brought this action for declaratory judgment seeking a determination of the unconstitutionality of I.C. § 49-901(a) and (b). Defendants answered joining issue solely on the constitutionality of I.C. § 49-901 (a) and (b). The matter was submitted to the district court on the parties’ stipulation of facts. Thereafter the district court entered a memorandum decision, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment. The district court held that the relief sought by plaintiffs should be granted, and that I.C. § 49-901 (a) and (b) were unconstitutional.
One would think this would be an end to the proceedings in the lower court; however, the record indicates that thereafter the Idaho Board of Highway Directors moved to intervene in a case which had already been decided. On the same day motion was made to amend the findings, conclusions and judgment. Therein for the first time was I.C. § 49-901 (c) discussed.
The district court denied the motion to amend and denied the motion to intervene. Appeal was perfected to this court by the Idaho Board of Highway Directors solely from the trial court’s denial of their motion to intervene. Thus no constitutional problem is presented by the appeal of the Highway Board.
It is therefore my belief that this court in holding I.C. § 49-901 (c) unconstitutional has granted relief sought by none of the parties (except persons who belatedly and *817unsuccessfully sought to intervene). It has so held although none of the beneficiaries of I.C. § 49-901 (c) (admittedly discriminatory) were before the court and no rationale for the constitutionality of the legislation was presented.