Court Opinion

ID: 9793917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:55:13.167581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:56.495605
License: Public Domain

MACY, Justice,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority but for a different reason. If it were not necessary to dance through the “litter” of cases in deciding whether the ordinance is or is not constitutional, I would join in the dissent of Chief Justice Golden. I do not, however, think that it is necessary to invoke the Constitution to decide this case. Pisano v. Shillinger, 835 P.2d 1136, 1138 (Wyo.1992); Wheeler v. Parker Drilling Company, 803 P.2d Í379, 1383 n. 1 (Wyo.1991).
The ordinance in question states that litter includes uncontainerized paper which may be classified as being trash, debris, rubbish, refuse, garbage, or junk. Those words clearly describe anything which has been discarded as being of no value. There is a total lack of proof that The Adviser had been discarded as being of no value. The proof was to the contrary.