Court Opinion

ID: 9662200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:02:37.728004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:37.719050
License: Public Domain

Tom Glaze, Justice,  concurring in part and dissenting in part. join Justice paropinion. t. majority opinion is seriously mistaken in deciding res judicata does not apply, and then proceeds to direct that this case should be returned to relitigate the entire matter. As Justice Imber ably points out, all of the rice buyers were affected by the illegal assessment, and they are entitled to a refund of any payments they made under the unconstitutional assessment. This court has long-established law that, when a taxpayer brings an illegal-exaction suit, that taxpayer represents all other affected parties in the class-action litigation. If the majority wishes to require a notice to all affected parties who have paid an illegal tax or assessment at the time a party commences a class-action illegal-exaction suit, this court should highlight that deviation from prior case law by applying such newly adopted notice effective prospectively. Better yet, to make matters clear, this court should promulgate a rule that requires such a notice upon filing illegal-exaction suits, if the court is convinced it should do so. This case is not the vehicle to impose such a new procedure or rule because, to do so, ignores a long list of case law on the subject and needlessly continues litigation in this case. Imber and Thornton, JJ., join this opinion.