noting that, “[i]f the words of a statute are clear, [this court] should not add to or alter them to accomplish a purpose not on the face of the statute”
How later courts described this case
- noting that, “[i]f the words of a statute are clear, [this court] should not add to or alter them to accomplish a purpose not on the face of the statute”
- noting “community property of spouses may be subject to liability of judgments whether or not the wife was a party to the suit” (citation omitted)
- where statutory language is clear, a court should not alter the statute to accomplish a purpose not on the face of the statute
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Batjer, J.,
concurring:
I agree with the majority opinion that injunctive relief is a proper remedy in this case and that this appeal is not rendered moot as a result of voter approval at the special election; however, I believe that the issues presented are far less ponderous than portrayed in that opinion.
Here with reference to the seventy-one names in question we have no problem of the county commissioners deleting names from or adding names to the petition, tax rolls or election rolls. The commissioners merely found those petitioners to be qualified electors and taxpayers of Lander County. They determined this by the fact that their spouses’ names appeared on the last real or personal property assessment roll and from the affidavits signed by those spouses actually listed acknowledging the marital relationship and that the unlisted spouse had a present, existing and equal interest in the assessed property. The Commissioners met their statutory obligation of determining the sufficiency of the petition and the burden then shifted to any opponents to show the facts alleged in the affidavits to be false. This was not done.
NRS 243.465 does not require that petitioners names appear on the assessment roll, only that by an examination of the roll it appears that the petitioner is a taxpayer. That statute does not preclude the presentation of supporting affidavits as was done here.
*735 I agree that the judgment of the district court must be affirmed.
Gunderson, J., concurs.