Washakie County School District Number One v. Herschler

606 P.2d 310
CourtWyoming Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1980
Docket5145
StatusPublished
Cited by262 cases

This text of 606 P.2d 310 (Washakie County School District Number One v. Herschler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wyoming Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Washakie County School District Number One v. Herschler, 606 P.2d 310 (Wyo. 1980).

Opinion

RAPER, Chief Justice.

On June 20, 1978, the appellants brought action under the Wyoming Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act 1 seeking relief from the Wyoming system of financing public education. The appellants described in their complaint the inequities that are resulting from the financing system currently used in this state and asked as relief that the system be declared viola-tive of the Wyoming Constitution. In the latter part of August, 1978, numerous motions to dismiss 2 were filed by the defendants. Memoranda of law were submitted by all parties on the various issues raised in the motions to dismiss. After some intermediate proceedings, the district court entered its order dismissing the complaint on May 4, 1979. The order dismissing the complaint stated no ground upon which it was based. However, a letter from the district court to the parties under date of April 10, 1979, sheds some light on the action:

“I have considered the various memo--randums of all counsel previously submitted with regard to the above captioned case and specifically with regard to my prior request that there be considered the possibility of stipulations which would permit the submission of this case to the Wyoming Supreme Court on reserved constitutional questions.
“Counsel have obviously taken the position that they do not desire to cooperate *315 in such an endeavor and since the Court has no ability to require them to do so I can only conclude that we cannot proceed in that manner at this time. I felt that it was important to the citizens of this state and the various school districts that this case be resolved by a final decision of the Supreme Court in the earliest and most economical manner but that obviously is not going to happen.
“Consequently, as I indicated at the oral hearing in Thermopolis, the Court will grant the motions to dismiss. Defendant’s counsel are directed to prepare appropriate orders and to submit the same to all counsel for approval and then to the Court for signature and entry.
“I presume that following that, this case could languish on for several appeals and many years before we get any final determination on the merits, for which I am genuinely regretful.”

The district court’s action in dismissing appears to be antithetical to his expressed hope for an early and economical decision of the case and the avoidance of multiple appeals. As will become evident as this opinion progresses, the district court’s action will in fact not serve to delay a substantive decision of this crucial question. We will hold the Wyoming system of school financing unconstitutional in that it fails to afford equal protection in violation of the Wyoming Constitution.

The motions to dismiss were based on several grounds. Essentially they were these:

(1) Appellants’ complaint does not state a claim on which relief can be granted.
(2) The appellants’ complaint lacks specificity, i. e., it does not specifically identify the statute or statutes which they allege to be in contravention of the constitution but rather merely assert that the “system of financing public education” is in violátion of the constitution.
(3) The appellants each lack standing to bring the complaint.
(4) The appellants’ action is not a justiciable controversy: The questions presented are political in nature and must be addressed by the legislature rather than the courts.
(5) The appellants’ action is defective because they failed to join every taxpayer as a party.
(6) The appellants’ action should be dismissed for failure to request a proper remedy.

Since the appellees asserted these numerous grounds as bases for dismissal in the district court and since the district court did not specify on which ground or grounds he based his grant of dismissal, we will address each of these issues serially, giving to each a brief but clearly defined answer, before proceeding to the principal question raised by this appeal — i. e., is the Wyoming system of financing public education in violation of the Wyoming Constitution? As the momentum of the opinion accelerates, these preliminary questions will fade from sight as superficial.

Appellees assert that the appellants’ complaint does not state a claim on which relief can be granted. The appellants are claiming that under the Wyoming Constitution they have a right to a school financing system that provides a relatively uniform amount of money on an annual per-pupil basis to each of the Wyoming school districts, 3 i. e., they are entitled to an equal educational opportunity. Further, they claim that under the financing system which has been established by the legislature they are denied such an equal educational opportunity. Wyoming has adopted the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, supra. It is evident from a reading of that *316 Act and the case law interpreting it that the instant action was properly brought under the auspices of that legislation. The appellants seek a determination of their rights and status under the constitution and statutes of this state. 4 We will not deny the direction of the Act that it be liberally construed and administered, particularly when there is a question of great public importance as is the one before us. Brimmer v. Thomson, Wyo. 1974, 521 P.2d 574. Those statutes empower the courts to grant relief of a declaratory nature. We can only conclude that the appellants’ complaint states a claim on which relief can be granted.

Appellees assert that the complaint lacks specificity in that it fails to enumerate the statutes which it claims to be in violation of the Wyoming Constitution in that appellants contented themselves with stating merely that the “system” of financing public education is in violation of the constitution. Although it certainly may have been better had the appellants been more detailed in their allegations, we cannot conclude that the complaint was so deficient as to require dismissal, particularly since we do not intend to be as specific in our disposition as appellees might wish. Whether the specificity standard has been satisfied is to be determined in terms of whether the pleadings give fair notice to the opposing party. Harris v. Grizzle, Wyo. 1979, 599 P.2d 580. We cannot ignore that appellees demonstrated from the very beginning their complete understanding of the statutes that appellants complained of and how those statutes contributed to the ailments described in the complaint. We can only conclude that the appellants’ use of the language “system” of financing public education, under the special and unique circumstances of this case, was as plain and clear a reference to statutes as if they had cited them by chapter and section numbers.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

William Penn S.D. v. PA Dept. of Ed.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2023
Jade Jewkes v. The State of Wyoming
2022 WY 90 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2022)
Casey William Hardison v. The State of Wyoming
2022 WY 45 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2022)
Gordon v. State
413 P.3d 1093 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2018)
Allred v. Bebout
2018 WY 8 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2018)
William Penn SD, Aplts v. Dept of Educ
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2017
Tracy Tucker v. State of Idaho
394 P.3d 54 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2017)
Gannon v. State
Supreme Court of Kansas, 2017
Miller v. Wyoming Department of Health
2012 WY 65 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2012)
Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. v. Rell
990 A.2d 206 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2010)
In the Interest of JW v. State
2010 WY 28 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2010)
William F. West Ranch, LLC v. Tyrrell
2009 WY 62 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2009)
Campbell County School District v. State
2008 WY 2 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2008)
Hicks v. Dowd
2007 WY 74 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
606 P.2d 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washakie-county-school-district-number-one-v-herschler-wyo-1980.