Court Opinion

ID: 9688174
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:36:46.348792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:35.607071
License: Public Domain

BIEGELMEIER, Chief Justice
(concurring specially).
My philosophy and views on the constitutionality of this method of financing public improvements are amply and I believe cogently set forth in my dissents in both the McFarland v. Barron and Berven v. Board of Regents opinions cited by Justice Wollman. I was a dissenter with Judge Rentto in McFarland and a dissenter with Justice Winans in Berven. Now that those views represent a majority, we are faced with the problem of overruling them prospectively. For reasons of adhering to precedent, I cast my vote for affirmance, but the expressions set forth in those dissents are sound and it may be that the court in the future will weigh the two views, i. e., soundness of reasoning against precedent and find the weight in favor of the former. I, therefore, concur in the result.