Court Opinion

ID: 9772953
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:33:56.605702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:49.479759
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
OSBORN, Justice.
Both the Appellants and the Appellee have filed a motion for rehearing. Both seek further clarification of that part of our opinion where we said “they (Board of *98Trustees) must consider the petition, address or remonstrance.”
We believe that “consider” is more of a household word than “remonstrance” and is a term understood by all parties. For lack of a better description, we originally said that the trustees must “stop, look and listen.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1971) defines the term as meaning to reflect on; to think of in an attentive way; to look at with earnest reflection and to give thought to with a view to accepting, or adopting. Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979) defines the term as meaning “to fix the mind on, with a view to careful examination; to examine; to inspect. To deliberate about and ponder over. To entertain or give heed to.” William C. Burton, Legal Thesaurus (1980) says that among other things consider means to consult, contemplate, devote attention to, evaluate, examine, heed, inspect, meditate on, mull over, observe, pay attention to and reflect upon.
A board which when presented with a remonstrance immediately files it in a wastebasket can hardly be said to have “considered” it. A board which delays action upon a remonstrance in order to study and deliberate upon the issues presented will quite clearly have “considered” the remonstrance, particularly if they modify or change their decision upon the issue confronting them. In between these extremes the board may “consider” the remonstrance by reading it, perhaps on occasions having discussion, and then proceeding to act contrary to the contentions urged in the remonstrance. But in any event we believe the board must stop, look and listen. In most instances a deliberating body will by its conduct show whether it has or has not “considered” a petition, address or remonstrance presented to it.
Both the Appellants’ and Appellee’s motion for rehearing are overruled.
STEPHEN F. PRESLAR, C.J., dissents to the overruling of the Appellee’s motion for rehearing.