Court Opinion

ID: 9625535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:43:53.129901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:10.604519
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Chief Justice
(concurring in the result):
I concur in the result, since the trial judge chose to canvass facts, which, if believed, in a very close case, would sustain him, albeit one may have to resort to a bit of dubious imagination here in pulling a reasonable prudent rabbit out of a judicial top hat, whichever way this case may have been decided. The main opinion has enunciated basic principles accurately, so that applying them to. the disputed facts, is not interpreting the law but repeating it, and applying it thereto.
The net result, what with a district judge, litigants and attorneys all over the place, plus the employment of the facilities, justices and personnel of this court, makes it abundantly clear to this author that the only real, substantial losers in this case, involving $896.27, — are the already overburdened- taxpayers.