Opposition — Desert Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp.

_—_—_———- Si sh

€9-1274

Supreme Court of the United Sta

October Term, 1979

No. 79-1257

DESERT CHRYSLER-PLYMOUTH, INC. and PETE KUBENA,

Petitioners,

VS.

CHRYSLER CORPORATION,

Respondent.

Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari

to the Supreme Court of Nevada.

ROBERT M. BUCKALEwW,

Valley Bank Plaza, Suite 1700,

300 South Fourth Street,

Las Vegas, Nevada 89101,

Attorney for Respondent.

Parker & Son, Inc., Law Printers, Los Angeles. Phone 724-6622

ne EATER E Re Ree:

SUBJECT INDEX

OR SERS A etek AER Reno

Reasons for Denying the Writ ....................2..00..02200.-

The Nevada Supreme Court Decided This Case

on Adequate and Independent State Grounds,

Specifically, Interpretation of the Nevada Con-

iE RIE SSA IANS aed RIMS AN HEI iP PR OR be

Conclusion

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

Cases Page

Desert Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp.,

95 Nev. Adv. Op. 175, 600 P.2d 1189 (1979)

inlet lisinhlpheibnandidbbaistist cites dina iiaiiaibeesis iia es aise Aa ae -

Galloway v. Truesdell, 83 Nev. 13, 422 P.2d 237

SET Seiten tace tee eee ons ook 2

Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U.S. 117 (1944) 000002. 3

Montana Ex Rel. Haire v. Rice, 204 U.S. 291

Es PRES AME cS A a OR ROMEO, REET ENS 3

New Motor Vehicle Board v. Orrin W. Fox Co.,

Re es Pe ete oe So ee 2

Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (1923) .......... 3

Statutes

California Vehicle Code, Sec. 3062 (West. Supp.

Da 2 ER RE Rae OE aC EN aL RE fs 2

Nevada Constitution, Art. 3, Sec. 7 ........................ 2

Nevada Constitution, Art. 6, Sec. 6 _....................... 2

Nevada Revised Statutes, Chap. 482 ...........000000.... 1

Nevada Revised Statutes, Sec. 482.36415 2

———2- ——— B&B

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1979

No. 79-1257

DESERT CHRYSLER-PLYMOUTH, INC. and PETE KUBENA,

Petitioners,

VS.

CHRYSLER CORPORATION,

Respondent.

Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari

to the Supreme Court of Nevada.

Question Presented.

Is the decision below of the Nevada Supreme Court,

which rests entirely upon the Separation of Powers

provisions of the Nevada Constitution, based upon inde-

pendent and adequate state grounds?

Reasons for Denying the Writ.

The Nevada Supreme Court Decided This Case on Adequate

and Independent State Grounds, Specifically, Interpretation

of the Nevada Constitution.

In 1977, the Nevada Legislature amended Nevada’s

motor vehicle franchise statutes by adding 20 sections

to Chapter 482 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. The

Nevada Supreme Court subsequently found four of

an TOM

these sections violative of Nevada’s Constitution, Desert

Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 95 Nev.

Adv. Op. 175, 600 P.2d 1189 (1979). The remaining

sections were held severable from the invalid sections.

The provisions held invalid (See Appendix D to

Petition for Writ of Certiorari) placed non-judicial

duties upon Nevada district court judges. The statutes

required a district court judge to perform prelicensing,

ministerial, fact-finding functions—administrative func-

tions—rather than resolving an actual case or con-

troversy — judicial functions. See Nev. Rev. Stat.

§482.36415.

Because the statutes placed administrative duties on

the judiciary, the Nevada Supreme Court held them

violative of the separation of powers doctrine of the

Nevada Constitution, Article 3, Section 7, and Article

6, Section 6 (See Petition for Writ of Certiorari, pp.

3, 4, and Appendix B), citing Galloway v. Truesdell,

83 Nev. 13, 422 P.2d 237 (1967).

Separation of powers was not an issue in New Motor

Vehicle Board v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 439 US. 96

(1978) and Petitioner’s reliance on that case is mis-

placed. Unlike the Nevada statute, the California enact-

ment involved in Fox properly placed the fact-finding,

pre-licensing determinations with an administrative

agency which was adequately equipped to independently

investigate the facts and hold hearings. Cal. Veh. Code

§3062 (West Supp. 1977-1978). The Nevada Supreme

Court recognized that many other states enacted recent

legislation dealing with the establishment of new auto-

mobile franchises. It found the Nevada statute to be

the only one that assigned purely administrative func-

tions to the judiciary. Thus, this case has no impact

on the statutes of other states.

sigillioiaes

Precisely because of this distinction between the Ne-

vada statutes and the California and other states’ stat-

utes dealing with new automobile franchises, this case

was decided on adequate and independent state grounds,

and the Nevada Supreme Court never reached the

various federal questions raised below. This Court will

not review a state court decision resting upon adequate

and independent state grounds, Herb v. Pitcairn, 324

U.S. 117 (1944). In Terrace v. Thompson, 263 USS.

197 (1923), this Court stated:

The question of whether or not a state statute

conflicts with the Constitution of the state is

settled by the decision of its highest court. [Cita-

tion omitted.]| This court is without authority to

review and revise the construction offered to a

state statute as to a state matter by a court

of last resort of the state.

263 U.S. at 224. Accord, Montana Ex Rel. Haire

v. Rice, 204 U.S. 291 (1907).

Because the Nevada Supreme Court decision in this

case rests entirely upon interpretation of the Nevada

Constitution, certiorari should not be granted.

Conclusion.

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT M. BUCKALEW,

Attorney for Respondent.