Court Opinion

ID: 9692502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:55:52.740711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:34.935078
License: Public Domain

DIXON, Justice
(dissenting).
We have today remanded the case to the district court “to afford the plaintiff an opportunity to plead the unconstitutionality of the ordinance.”
Even if there were no other considerations involved, it would seem a superfluous procedure to send the plaintiff back to the district court to raise an issue he has already raised and which has already been decided by the Court of Appeal. The record before us is complete as to this issue. The remand will add nothing of substance to the case. It will merely fulfill a formal requirement.
Further, it is to be noted that the ordinance, the constitutionality of which is in question, was passed after the district court had rendered judgment in this case, and was raised as a defense at the new trial granted on defendant’s motion.
No procedural device allowed by the Code of Civil Procedure was available to this plaintiff to satisfy what we call the “plea of unconstitutionality.” It is possible *605that the plaintiff, met for the first time on new trial with an ordinance enacted after judgment on the trial on the merits, might have made an effort to file an amended petition. Such a pleading, however, would be more in the nature of a replication, prohibited by C.C.P. 852:
“ * * * No replicatory pleadings shall be used and all new matter alleged in exceptions, contradictory motions, and-., answers, whether in a principal or incidental action, shall be considered denied or avoided.”
While concurring, in the main, with the majority opinion, I must respectfully dissent from that portion which requires the case to be remanded.