Court Opinion

ID: 9626236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:06:18.50442+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:24.129356
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Chief Justice,
specially concurring.
I agree with the rationale of the majority opinion, particularly the conclusion that this statute is ambiguous. I would, however, also invoke the rule alluded to by this *101court but not applied in Smith v. City of Casper, Wyo., 419 P.2d 704, 706 (1966):
“ * * * In the multitudinous cases which have discussed interpretation of the word ‘or’ as ‘and’ and vice versa, it seems to be the general rule that the interchange can be made only when it is necessary to harmonize the provisions of a statute, give effect to all its provisions, save it from unconstitutionality or to effectuate the obvious intent of the legislature. 50 Am.Jur. Statutes § 282 [now found in 79 Am.Jur.2d § 241]; 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 335. ⅜ * * ”
I have some difficulty perceiving how the devices described in § 35-11-1103, W.S. 1977, could be “utilized” without being “installed,” and it seems to me that reading the statute so that it says “designed, installed or utilized” does have the effect of harmonizing the provisions of the statute and giving effect to all its provisions. I also am persuaded that this reading does effectuate the obvious intent of the legislature. I would therefore make that construction of the statute as another reason for affirming the district court.