court resolved declaratory-judgment action involving the constitutionality of an apportionment plan in which the apportionment board was not one of the named parties
How later courts described this case
- court resolved declaratory-judgment action involving the constitutionality of an apportionment plan in which the apportionment board was not one of the named parties
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Sweeney, J.,
dissenting. In my view, the parties lack standing to bring this action and, therefore, I believe the cause should be dismissed. Any opinion emanating from this court on the merits of this so-called controversy would be purely advisory and should not be sanctioned by this court. In addition, I believe this court has done a grave disservice to all concerned by issuing multiple result-oriented opinions in support of a non-substantive entry without the benefit of oral argument. Even assuming that standing is not an issue, this court has eliminated a most valuable tool for determining the merit of the various arguments raised by the parties.
Nevertheless, assuming arguendo, that the parties do have proper standing to bring this action, I would concur in the well-reasoned and cogent analysis articulated by Justice Resnick in her dissenting opinion.