- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
IN RE GILLETTE DAILY JOURNAL
Summary of Opinion: In re Gillette Daily Journal (No. 1752)
Factual and Procedural Background
This is a supplemental, per curiam opinion addressing reserved constitutional questions certified by the District Court of Campbell County, with Judge Harry P. Ilsley presiding. The case was resubmitted to the Supreme Court without brief or oral argument. The Supreme Court's earlier opinion (cited as 11 P.2d 265) left unanswered whether Chapter 85, Session Laws 1931, improperly restricted, burdened, or classified the business of newspapers "having the set-up, size and composition of the Gillette Daily Journal shown by the evidence," because the district court had not then made certain factual findings required to resolve the constitutional questions.
After that decision, the district court made supplemental findings of fact and returned the case to the Supreme Court for further proceedings on the constitutional questions. The district court found that the Gillette Daily Journal (1) has a paid circulation of not less than five hundred, (2) contains a page the size of not less than 12 inches by 19 inches as required by the statute, and (3) therefore conforms in size to the statutory definition of a legal newspaper. The district court also found that the statutory provision prescribing size is reasonable. Because of those findings, the district court ordered the papers and files returned to the Supreme Court for further disposition of the constitutional questions.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Chapter 85, Session Laws 1931, improperly restricts, burdens, or classifies the business of newspapers having the set-up, size, and composition of the Gillette Daily Journal (i.e., whether the statute is unconstitutional as applied to that newspaper).
- Whether a court should decide reserved constitutional questions where the party allegedly affected has complied with the statute, claims no right based on the statute's invalidity, and alleges no injury resulting from its application.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| 11 P.2d 265 (earlier opinion of this Court) | Context: The Court's former opinion left unanswered the constitutional question because certain facts had not been found by the trial court. | The Court relied on that earlier disposition as background: the matter was remanded for factual findings, which have now been made and returned to the Court for further proceedings. |
| 12 C.J. 784 | Statement of law: "But no question as to the constitutionality of a statute will be considered, where no right is claimed on the basis of its invalidity, and no injury is alleged as resulting from its application." Also: "one who has complied with the statute may not question its validity." | The Court invoked these principles to conclude that, because the newspaper complied with the statute and neither the plaintiff nor intervenors claimed rights based on the statute's invalidity or alleged injury from its application, the constitutional question need not be decided. |
| 19 Ann. Cas. 175 (note) | Referential note concerning the subject that supports the proposition that one who complies with a statute may not challenge its validity. | The Court cited the note to reinforce the point that the plaintiff, having complied with the statute, cannot challenge its constitutionality; intervenors likewise did not assert invalidity. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court's analysis proceeded in the following steps, limited to the material facts and law stated in the opinion:
- Recital of procedural posture: The Court had earlier withheld an answer on constitutionality because the district court had not found certain facts necessary to determine whether the statute applied to the Gillette Daily Journal.
- Factual findings by the district court after remand: The Court accepted the district court's findings that the newspaper has a paid circulation of not less than five hundred and contains a page of at least 12 inches by 19 inches, thereby conforming to the statutory definition of a legal newspaper; the size requirement was found reasonable.
- Application of governing principle: The Court relied on authority (12 C.J. 784 and the cited note in 19 Ann. Cas. 175) establishing that courts will not consider questions as to the constitutionality of a statute when (a) the statute has been complied with, (b) no right is asserted on the basis of the statute's invalidity, and (c) no injury is alleged as resulting from its application. The Court quoted the principle and applied it to the present facts.
- Effect of compliance: Because the plaintiff complied with the statute, the plaintiff may not challenge its validity; the intervenors never claimed the statute unconstitutional and in fact insisted it was valid, so they were not in a position to press a constitutional complaint.
- Conclusion of analysis: Given compliance and the absence of asserted injury or claims of invalidity, the Court determined that "no further answer as to the constitutionality of the statute will, accordingly, be given."
Holding and Implications
The Court declined to answer the reserved constitutional questions because the district court found that the Gillette Daily Journal complied with the statutory requirements; accordingly, no party claimed rights based on the statute's invalidity and no injury from its application was alleged.
Implications for the parties:
- Direct effect on the plaintiff: Having complied with the statute (paid circulation at least five hundred and page size at least 12 by 19 inches), the plaintiff cannot challenge the statute's validity in this action under the authorities cited.
- Direct effect on the intervenors: The intervenors did not claim the statute unconstitutional and asserted the contrary; they are therefore not in a position to obtain relief on a constitutional basis.
- Broader implications: The opinion expressly gives no further answer on the statute's constitutionality in this case. The opinion does not announce or analyze any new rule of constitutional law beyond applying the cited, longstanding principle that compliance and absence of asserted injury or claim of invalidity preclude consideration of constitutional objections. No new precedent beyond this application is articulated in the opinion.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — RESERVED QUESTIONS — PERFORMANCE.
1. A reserved question involving the constitutionality of a statute will not be considered where the statute has been complied with and no right is claimed on the basis of its invalidity, nor injury arising out of it is asserted.
Per Curiam.
In our former opinion ( 11 P.2d 265) we left unanswered the question whether Chapter 85, Session Laws 1931, improperly restricts, burdens and classifies the business of newspapers "having the set-up, size and composition of the Gillette Daily Journal shown by the evidence," for the reason that the court had not found certain facts there mentioned. Subsequent to our decision the court found the facts. It found that the Gillette Daily Journal has a paid circulation of not less than five hundred; that it contains a page, the size of not less than 12 inches by 19 inches, as required by the statute, and therefore conforms in size to the statutory definition of a legal newspaper, and that the statutory provision that a legal newspaper shall be of the size mentioned is reasonable. And the court thereupon ordered that the papers and files in this case be returned to this court, for such further proceedings as might be proper upon the constitutional questions involved.
Had the court found that the newspaper in question did not comply with the statutory requirements above mentioned, and particularly, if it also had found the facts showing non-compliance with the statute, then, doubtless, we would have been called upon to answer whether or not the statute in that connection is violative of the constitutional provisions mentioned in the court's certificate. But since the statutory requirements have not been violated, as the court found, no further answer seems to be required herein. It is said in 12 C.J. 784:
"But no question as to the constitutionality of a statute will be considered, where no right is claimed on the basis of its invalidity, and no injury is alleged as resulting from its application."
That is the situation here. Since the statute has been complied with, no right, of course, is claimed on the basis of its invalidity, and no injury arising out of it is asserted.
It is further said in 12 C.J. 784, that "one who has complied with the statute may not question its validity." The plaintiff in this case has complied with the statute, as the court has found, and so he cannot claim that the statute is invalid. The intervenors, on the other hand, never have claimed and do not now claim that the statute is unconstitutional, but insist upon the contrary, and hence they are in no better position herein than the plaintiff. See note on the subject in 19 Ann. Cas. 175. No further answer as to the constitutionality of the statute will, accordingly, be given.
Alert