Court Opinion

ID: 9508552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:33:51.693405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:34.502228
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE SHEEHY,
dissenting:
This appeal is really from the orders of the District Court dated October 28, 1986 and January 13, 1987, granting respectively summary judgments to the county and the state.
At least it may be said for the order of October 28, 1986 in favor of the county that is a decision based upon law as the District Court perceived it. However, the summary judgment in favor of the county was improper, because genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the county, by its lack of enforcement of its truck routes, and its zoning policies, has jointly damaged the property owners here.
The summary judgment in favor of the state is peculiar. It is founded on findings of fact and conclusions of law by the District Court, adopted verbatim from a submission by counsel for the state. In its findings, the District Court resolved issues of fact in favor of the state, a most improper procedure when deciding a motion for summary judgment. By the very act of deciding factual issues, the District Court shows that there were genuine issues of material fact, which would preclude summary judgment without a trial. The District Court concluded its order of January 13, 1987, saying:
“From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that defendants’ June 30, 1986 Motion for Summary Judgment is properly made and submitted; is supported by the evidence submitted to the Court, and is hereby granted to these defendants and against the plaintiffs to this action.”
I would reverse the summary judgments and remand for trial.