Here is the formal ruling from Judge Wayne Phillips concerning the spot-zoning issue of HGS.
5 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Did he (Judge Phillips) actually render a decision on the rezoning issue with this ruling? I am no attorney, but this is a very strange court document to me. Perhaps G-Guy knows?
Yes he did. If you're talking about the "look" of the document, it was downloaded from the CCE site. Normally, these documents are in pdf format, but not this time.
GFGirl, I respectfully submit that he (Judge Phillips) did not appear to rule on the "summary judgement issue" on the county side of things. What does that mean in the eyes of the law? Where does this case go from here with an incomplete ruling?
"Therefore, with regard to Defendants S.M.E and the Board of County Commissioners, the Motion for Summary Judgment is Denied. With regard to the various Defendants Urquhart,the Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted."
Start reading at page 10, line 10. He did rule on the summary judgment issues.
He also ruled that the zoning was legally done, and was not spot zoning, and wrote: "As noted, a zoning change was not even required. The zone change was requested pursuant to Montana statute allowing for tax increment financing."
5 comments:
Did he (Judge Phillips) actually render a decision on the rezoning issue with this ruling? I am no attorney, but this is a very strange court document to me. Perhaps G-Guy knows?
Yes he did. If you're talking about the "look" of the document, it was downloaded from the CCE site. Normally, these documents are in pdf format, but not this time.
GFGirl,
I respectfully submit that he (Judge Phillips) did not appear to rule on the "summary judgement issue" on the county side of things. What does that mean in the eyes of the law? Where does this case go from here with an incomplete ruling?
Sorry Anon. for misunderstanding.
I believe we will know shortly what's going to happen with this.
I'll keep you posted.
"Therefore, with regard to Defendants S.M.E and the Board of County Commissioners, the Motion for Summary Judgment is Denied. With regard to the various Defendants Urquhart,the Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted."
Start reading at page 10, line 10. He did rule on the summary judgment issues.
He also ruled that the zoning was legally done, and was not spot zoning, and wrote: "As noted, a zoning change was not even required. The zone change was
requested pursuant to Montana statute allowing for tax increment financing."
Post a Comment