Court Opinion

ID: 9845084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:15:03.673937+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:51.452831
License: Public Domain

REES, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
I do not believe the decision of the defendants to permit the establishment of the Waubonsie Soil Conservation Subdistrict was supported by the required “substantial evidence.” I would therefore hold trial court was correct in sustaining the writs of certiorari.
I am persuaded the determination of the trial court that when the commissioners made their decision to establish the watershed district, they based the same on figures and data supposedly before them, but which were in truth compiled and devel*599oped at a later date for purposes of trial in the district court, is of controlling significance.
Trial court found the evidence purporting to show benefits to plaintiffs was “not competent and substantial” but in fact was “false and misleading.”
The holding of the majority there was substantial evidence in the record to support commissioners’ finding that plaintiffs’ lands would benefit from the establishment of the conservation subdistrict is at variance diametrically with trial court’s findings of fact and legal conclusions.
On the whole record, I feel the trial court was correct and would affirm.
MOORE, C. J., joins in this dissent.