Court Opinion

ID: 9638384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:42:38.397394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:31.172957
License: Public Domain

GREENHILL, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I agree that the judgment, of the trial court should be affirmed; and, therefore, I concur in the judgment of the Court.
It clearly appears to me that this particular determination of the Antiquities Committee is not supported by substantial evidence. Stated differently, for the reasons set out in the Court’s opinion, the action of the Board is arbitrary and without a sound basis.
My conclusion is based on the application of the substantial evidence rule and not upon constitutional grounds. When a controversy may be resolved on a non-constitutional ground, then the court should rest its decision on that ground, and should not decide the constitutional questions presented. Neese v. Southern Railway Co., 350 U.S. 77, 76 S.Ct. 131, 100 L.Ed. 60 (1955); Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S. 331, 75 S.Ct. 790, 99 L.Ed. 1129 (1955). I therefore, do not reach any constitutional question.