applying new rule that issuance and sale of limited obligation bonds funded by excise taxes on sales and handling of cigarettes contravened state constitutional provision limiting state debt prospectively only due to “massive” reliance on previous rule
How later courts described this case
- applying new rule that issuance and sale of limited obligation bonds funded by excise taxes on sales and handling of cigarettes contravened state constitutional provision limiting state debt prospectively only due to “massive” reliance on previous rule
- overruling of former interpretation of a constitutional debt limitation made prospectively so as not to invalidate existing municipal bonds
- overruling decision allowing issuance and sale of limited obligation bonds prospectively only so as not to "jeopardize the massive contractual and governmental enterprises done under its protective shield"
- overruling of former interpretation of a constitutional debt limitation made *276 prospectively so as not to invalidate existing municipal bonds
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Hill, J.,
(concurring specially)—I am in complete accord with the majority opinion in its determination that the Gruen case 7 is overruled insofar as it purports to hold that no state debt is incurred by the issuance and sale of limited obligation bonds if they are to be paid from excise taxes.
I agree further that the overruling of the Gruen case, and its theory of what constitutes a debt, cannot be permitted to operate retroactively, and that bonds heretofore issued and sold in reliance upon that decision are valid and must be paid.
I also agree that, under certain circumstances, bonds, authorized in reliance upon that decision and not yet issued and sold, may be issued and sold. The state should fulfill its commitments made in reliance on that decision. I would limit the issuance and sale of Public School Plant Facilities Bonds to an amount necessary to enable the state to fulfill its commitments to school districts which have commenced construction, using their available funds in reliance upon such commitments, to make possible the completion of their projects. I would limit the issuance and sale of Capitol Improvement Project Bonds to an amount necessary to enable the state to fulfill its existing commitments on projects now under way.
It is my view, therefore, that the Writ of Mandamus to the State Treasurer should be limited to directing him to
*675
*676 complete the issuance and sale of so many of the bonds, authorized by the Laws of 1961, Ex. Ses., chapter 3, p. 2521, and Laws of 1961, Ex. Ses., chapter 23, p. 2656, as may be necessary to meet commitments made for the completion of school plant facilities and capitol improvement projects now under construction.
I do not share fully in the majority’s enthusiasm for “Prospective Overruling.” I know of no way by which this court can bind tomorrow’s court to decide a certain issue in a certain way. I can see great value to the trial bench, the bar, and the legislatures, in indicating that a change is contemplated in an established rule; but that is not a prospective overruling.
As of December 13, 1962, 8 a majority of this court had indicated that they undoubtedly would not follow the Gruen case. Consequently, the 1963 legislature hedged its legislation, 9 and, while it provided for a 59 million dollar bond issue for public school plant facilities, payable from retail sales taxes, it also provided that, if this court held the issue of bonds to be invalid as constituting a state debt, it should be referred to the people under the provisions of Art. 8, § 3, of the state constitution at the next general election.
The majority hold, and I agree, that this 59 million dollar bond issue would constitute a state debt and put the state beyond its constitutional debt limit, and that, therefore, it should be submitted to the people at the next general election as the legislature provided.
In the main my only disagreement with the holding of the majority (and that may be entirely academic) 10 is that I would not hold all bonds, authorized but not yet issued pursuant to Laws of 1961, Ex. Ses., chapter 3, p. 2521 (Public School Plant Facilities Bonds), and Laws of 1961, Ex. *677 Ses., chapter 23, p. 2656 (Capitol Improvement Projects Bonds), to be lawful and valid. I have already indicated that I believe that only such bonds should be issued and sold as are necessary to make good the state’s commitments to those who have started construction in reliance on those commitments.
Donworth, J., concurs with Hill, J.
Gruen v. State Tax Comm. (1949), 35 Wn. (2d) 1, 211 P. (2d) 651 .
State ex rel. Washington Toll Bridge Authority v. Yelle (1962), 61 Wn. (2d) 28, 377 P. (2d) 466 .
Chapter 26, Ex. Ses., 1963.
If the entire amount of the unissued bonds is needed for the commitments to which reference has been made, then I am in accord with the majority.