Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Town of Pine Bluffs v. Eisele

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided October 3, 2017No. S-17-0027Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

BURKE, Chief Justice,

concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which KAUTZ, Justice, joins.

[¶29] I agree that the Town was not required to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking to enjoin an illegal assessment pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-13-109(c). However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the assessment was not “illegal” and that the complaint was properly dismissed. I would reverse the decision of the district court.

[¶30] In interpreting any statute, we endeavor to ascertain legislative intent. Our primary source for determining that intent is the plain and…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Bunten v. Rock Springs Grazing Ass'nWyoming Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Krenning v. Heart Mountain Irrigation DistrictWyoming Supreme Court · 2009
  3. State ex inf. Crow v. West Side Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1898
  4. Hacker v. HoweNebraska Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Odem v. Sinton Independent School Dist.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1921

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API