Court Opinion

ID: 9551578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:55:48.852099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:13.636575
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE CASTLES
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I concur in the result here; which I can read, reinstates the judgment of October 16, 1973.
I have to wonder if I really understand the reasons. The
*213However, I dissent as to the reasons given. Again, I have to wonder if I really understand the reasons. The majority first considers issue No. 3; that is, the district court’s ruling that sections 21-137 and 21-139, R.C.M.1947, are unconstitutional. We refuse to rule on the issue because the attorney general was not notified. Aside from any view of the meaning of Rule 38 of this Court’s Appellate Rules, what effect is our holding to have? We refuse to review the district court’s holding of unconstitutionality—which as applied here affirms the holding. Or, have we reversed the holding? I just do not know, but my basis for dissenting is that I believe this court should rule on the constitutionalty of these statutes.