Court Opinion

ID: 9540066
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:12:32.837876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:35.747725
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE SHEA
concurring:
In concur with the opinion of the Court, even though I feel that we have strained considerably to uphold many of its provisions. But, as long as what we have done does not fly in the face of any *412constitutional provisions, I believe that we should give more leeway to initiatives passed by the electorate of this state.
In addition, I feel it necessary to comment of the findings and conclusions adopted by the trial court. The plaintiff proposed eleven findings of fact and the trial court adopted verbatim all eleven of them. The trial court, did, however, add finding twelve. The plaintiff proposed nine conclusions of law and the trial court adopted verbatim all nine of them. This is hardly an indication that the trial court carefully studied the constitutional issues involved and carefully entered into the decision-making process.
In Tomaskie v. Tomaskie (1981), 191 Mont. 508, 625 P.2d 536, 38 St.Rep. 416, this Court disapproved of the practice of adopting verbatim the proposed findings and conclusions of the prevailing party. In Jensen v. Jensen, 192 Mont. 547, 631 P.2d 700 (1981), I set out in detail the reasons why no trial court should adopt verbatim the proposed findings and conclusions presented by the prevailing party. It is sad that in such an important case as this, that the trial court has chosen to rubber-stamp the proposed findings and conclusions submitted by the plaintiffs in this case. This is particularly so when the preliminary orders of the court, made final by the trial court’s decision, declared all of Initiative 85 to be unconstitutional. Matters of such importance are certainly deserving of more attention than was obviously given here by the trial court.