Court Opinion

ID: 9582014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:21:29.520369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:23.983788
License: Public Domain

ROONEY, Chief Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I dissent from only that part of the majority opinion which turns on the fact that voir dire was conducted of the board members. The quotation concerning the position of two jurists in Board of Trustees, Laramie County School District No. 1 v. Spiegel, Wyo., 549 P.2d 1161 (1976), has reference to the minority position in that case on this point. Footnote 1 to the discussion of voir dire in that case reads:
“1. The voir dire section of this opinion represents only the expressions of Justice Rose and Judge Armstrong and is not the majority opinion on the subject of voir dire.” 549 P.2d at 1165.
The dissent of Chief Justice Guthrie, in which Justice Thomas joined, sets forth the rationale for not allowing voir dire of the board. The majority opinion adequately resolved the first issue without reference to voir dire.
Also included in the voir dire section of Board of Trustees v. Spiegel, supra, (and thus not the majority holding) is a discussion on the rule of necessity which is referred to in the majority opinion but not addressed as a necessary issue. I agree that it need not be addressed in this case.