Carter v. Board of County Com'rs of Laramie County, No. 4278
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming |
| Writing for the Court | PARKER |
| Citation | 518 P.2d 142 |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 4278 |
| Parties | Franklin E. CARTER et al., Appellants (Plaintiffs below), v. The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF the COUNTY OF LARAMIE, State of Wyoming, Appellee (Defendant below). |
Page 142
v.
The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF the COUNTY OF LARAMIE, State of Wyoming, Appellee (Defendant below).
Page 143
Robert L. Duncan of Fennell & Duncan, Cheyenne, for appellants.
Edward L. Grant, Deputy County and Pros. Atty., Frederic C. Reed, Deputy Atty. Gen., Crim. Div., Cheyenne, for appellee.
Before PARKER, C. J., and McEWAN, GUTHRIE, McINTYRE, and McCLINTOCK, JJ.
Mr. Chief Justice PARKER delivered the opinion of the court.
Plaintiffs, Laramie County residents and property owners, sought a declaratory judgment to restrain the board of county commissioners from enforcing a July 11, 1972, zoning resolution without having conducted a public election as required by § 18-284 (c. 6, Title 10 1), W.S.1957, and including an area beyond the three-mile limit prescribed in § 18-281 of the same chapter and title. According to the facts stipulated by the parties, the board had not pretended to comply with the mentioned statutes but instead purported to act under the authority of c. 6.1, Title 18 (§§ 18-289.1 to 18-289.9), W.S.1957, 1973 Cum. Supp., first passed in 1959 and amended in 1967. The district court decided for the defendant, dismissing the complaint of plaintiffs, who have appealed, arguing that the commissioners were required to conduct an election before establishment of zoning, that the zoning resolution was invalid as exceeding the jurisdictional limitations, and that the provisions of c. 6.1 were unconstitutional as an invalid delegation of legislative authority granted to the county and to the planning and zoning commission. The defendant responds that the provisions of c. 6 are not applicable and that c. 6.1, providing for the establishment of zoning regulations by the board of county commissioners upon the recommendation of a county planning and zoning commission within the county, is a valid and enforceable legislative act and is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to either the board or the commission.
It thus appears that aside from the claimed unconstitutionality of c. 6.1 because of invalid delegation of legislative authority the question presented in the appeal is which of the mentioned legislative provisions controls. Incidentally, plaintiffs argue that there can be no implied repeal of c. 6; but this facet is unimportant since defendant does not so claim, insisting instead that the two pieces of legislation deal with different subjects. Addressing ourselves to the principal question, we consider first the provisions in the respective statutes showing their purposes.
In the 1955 statute, § 18-285, states:
'The purpose of such zoning as provided in this act (§§ 18-281 to 18-289) shall be to conserve and promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the county. The board of county commissioners shall provide by resolution for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Snake River Venture v. Board of County Com'rs., Teton County, No. 5222
...zoning (use of buildings and lands, location of buildings, et cetera). Carter v. Board of County Commissioners of County of Laramie, Wyo., 518 P.2d 142 Before applying the law to the facts of this case, reference is made to two other legal areas. 1. Zoning and related laws find their justif......
-
Bd. of Trs. of Laramie Cnty. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Laramie Cnty., S-19-0192
...but subdivisions of the State, deriving even their existence from the legislature"); Carter v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Laramie Cty. , 518 P.2d 142, 144 (Wyo. 1974) ("[T]he legislature may delegate a part of its power over local subjects to municipal corporations, county boards, and......
-
L.U. Sheep Co. v. Board of County Com'rs of County of Hot Springs, No. 89-148
...powers to both cities and counties for the exercise of governmental functions. Carter v. Board of County Commissioners of Laramie County, 518 P.2d 142 (Wyo.1974). The legislature has expressly ceded to counties the power to acquire property through eminent domain and, furthermore, it has af......
-
State ex rel. Motor Vehicle Div. v. Holtz, No. 83-152
...unconstitutional as a violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine. Carter v. Board of County Commissioners of County of Laramie, Wyo., 518 P.2d 142 (1974). 2 If the suspensions were accomplished by the Courts, the statutory duties of the Division would be either superfluous or appellate.......
-
Snake River Venture v. Board of County Com'rs., Teton County, No. 5222
...zoning (use of buildings and lands, location of buildings, et cetera). Carter v. Board of County Commissioners of County of Laramie, Wyo., 518 P.2d 142 Before applying the law to the facts of this case, reference is made to two other legal areas. 1. Zoning and related laws find their justif......
-
Bd. of Trs. of Laramie Cnty. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Laramie Cnty., S-19-0192
...but subdivisions of the State, deriving even their existence from the legislature"); Carter v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Laramie Cty. , 518 P.2d 142, 144 (Wyo. 1974) ("[T]he legislature may delegate a part of its power over local subjects to municipal corporations, county boards, and......
-
L.U. Sheep Co. v. Board of County Com'rs of County of Hot Springs, No. 89-148
...powers to both cities and counties for the exercise of governmental functions. Carter v. Board of County Commissioners of Laramie County, 518 P.2d 142 (Wyo.1974). The legislature has expressly ceded to counties the power to acquire property through eminent domain and, furthermore, it has af......
-
State ex rel. Motor Vehicle Div. v. Holtz, No. 83-152
...unconstitutional as a violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine. Carter v. Board of County Commissioners of County of Laramie, Wyo., 518 P.2d 142 (1974). 2 If the suspensions were accomplished by the Courts, the statutory duties of the Division would be either superfluous or appellate.......