No. 12809
I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE OF M N A A
H OR F OTN
1975
J. EINAR LARSON, e t a l . ,
Plaintiffs,
THE STATE O M N A A and THE
F OTN
DEPARTMENT O REVENUE, e t a 1. ,
F
Defendants.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable James D. Freebourn, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
,L -4I C L L (! ,' t--1
For ~lalLTitll!Zs :
R. Bruce McGinnis appeared, Helena, Montana
Randall Swanberg argued, Great F a l l s , Montana
'",I { $ Ll:4/J
For & f e n en s : L - -
(
.
UI r L L 4 ~ A . Sa~,Wcrp,fi f u d *
~ ~
S c r i b n e r and Huss , Helena, Montana
Lawrence D. Huss argued, Helena, Montana
Thoaas Dowling, County Attorney, Helena, Montana
~ eE iB. Erickson, Deputy County Attorney appeared,
hi Lena, Montana
William Leaphart, C i t y Attorney, Helena, Montana
Submitted March 3, 1975
Decided:APR 2 4 1975
Filed : APR 2 4% ~ Y ' f i
Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
T h i s a p p e a l i s by d e f e n d a n t s f r 0 m . a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment
and i n j u n c t i o n e n t e r e d a g a i n s t them i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ,
Lewis and C l a r k County. Defendants ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s
t h e s t a t e ) a r e a g e n c i e s and i n d i v i d u a l s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e
a p p r a i s a l of p r o p e r t y i n L e w i s and C l a r k County f o r t a x a t i o n p u r -
poses. P l a i n t i f f s (hereinafter referred t o a s taxpayers ) a r e
owners of r e a l p r o p e r t y i n Lewis and C l a r k County, and Helena
P r o p e r t y Owners A s s o c i a t i o n , a c o r p o r a t i o n . Taxpayers b r o u g h t
t h i s s u i t a s a c l a s s a c t i o n , r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e m s e l v e s and a l l o t h e r
owners of r e a l p r o p e r t y i n L e w i s and C l a r k County s u b j e c t t o t a x -
a t i o n computed upon v a l u a t i o n s a s a p p r a i s e d by t h e s t a t e . Lewis
and C l a r k County and t h e C i t y of Helena a p p e a r e d a s i n t e r v e n o r s ,
supporting t h e taxpayers' position.
A s i s t h e p r a c t i c e i n many p a r t s of t h e country, Montana
t a x e s r e a l p r o p e r t y and improvements by a n a p p r a i s a l - a s s e s s m e n t -
l e v y method. T h i s l a w s u i t i n v o l v e s t h e f i r s t of t h e s e s t e p s --
the appraisal. P r i o r t o 1972, t h e l a s t county-wide a p p r a i s a l i n
Lewis and C l a r k County was o n e completed i n 1 9 6 2 . A t t h e urging
of t h e S t a t e Board of E q u a l i z a t i o n ( p r e d e c e s s o r t o t h e Department
of Revenue, a d e f e n d a n t h e r e ) , Lewis and C l a r k County h i r e d a
p r i v a t e f i r m , James R . L a i r d & A s s o c i a t e s , t o c o n d u c t a county-
wide a p p r a i s a l i n 1972-1973. However, b e f o r e Lewis and C l a r k
County c o u l d u s e t h a t a p p r a i s a l t o a d j u s t i t s t a x r o l l s , s t a t u t o r y
and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l changes s h i f t e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a p p r a i s a l s
t o the state. S e c t i o n 84-429.7, R.C.M. 1947; Article V I I I , Sec-
t i o n 3 , 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n .
When t h e s t a t e assumed t h e s e new r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , it
w a s d e t e r m i n e d t h e L a i r d a p p r a i s a l would be used f o r 1974 Lewis
and C l a r k County a s s e s s m e n t s . N o t i c e of t h i s proposed a c t i o n
prompted t h e t a x p a y e r s t o f i l e t h i s s u i t , s e e k i n g a d e c l a r a t i o n
~ h a c ~ n p L sL i e o I
~ O tile L a i r d a p p r a i s a l would v i o l a t e con-
s c i t u t i o n a l and s t a t u t o r y l i m i t a t i o n s o n t h e s t a t e ' s power t o
tax. The s t a t e h e r e a p p e a l s from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e c l a r -
a t i o n t h a t t h e p r o p o s e d u s e of t h e L a i r d a p p r a i s a l would v i o -
i a t e e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n , d u e p r o c e s s , and u n i f o r m i t y r e q u i r e m e n t s
of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s and Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n s , and Montana
statutes. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n j o i n e d u s e o f t h e a p p r a i s a l on
t h e s e g r o u n d s , and t h e s t a t e a l s o a p p e a l s f r o m t h a t r u l i n g .
These i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r t h i s C o u r t ' s determin-
1. Would i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e L a i r d a p p r a i s a l v i o l a t e
c o r i s t l t u t i o n a l and s t a t u t o r y l i m i t a t i o n s o n t h e s t a t e ' s power t o
a p p r a i s e and t a x ?
2. Must t h e t a x p a y e r s e x h a u s t t h e i r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
remedies before p r o t e s t i n g t h e a p p r a i s a l i n t h e c o u r t s ?
3. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err i n g r a n t i n g i n j u n c t i v e
relief?
4. Is t h e judgment s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ?
5. Should t a x p a y e r s ' motion t o s t r i k e p o r t i o n s of t h e
s t a t e ' s a p p e l l a t e b r i e f be g r a n t e d ?
However, b e f o r e c o n s i d e r i n g t h e s e i s s u e s , two f a c t u a l
d i s p u t e s must n e c e s s a r i l y h e r e s o l v e d .
F i r s t , t h e s t a t e a l l e g e s t h e following f i n d i n g s of f a c t
a r e contrary t o t h e evidence presented a t t h e t r i a l :
"The r e a p p r a i s a l o f p r o p e r t y l y i n g w i t h i n L e w i s
and C l a r k County c o n d u c t e d , b y James R . L a i r d &
A s s o c i a t e s and a d o p t e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t DEPARTMENT
O F REVENUE and i t s o f f i c e r s , a g e n t s and employees
f o r t h e f i s c a l y e a r 1974-1975 was n o t c o n d u c t e d
as a p a r t of a uniform p l a n f o r r e a p p r a i s a l of a l l
; > r o p e r t y w i t h i n t h e S t a t e o f Montana.
"XIV.
"The d e f e n d a n t DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE h a s n o t
a d o p t e d o r implemented a u n i f o r m p l a n f o r t h e
i i p p r a ~ s a l , a s s e s s m e n t and e q u a l i z a t i o n o f a l l
l ~ r o p e r t y i t h i n t h e S t a t e o f Montana."
w
N n i l e a f a c t u a l d i s p u t e c o n c e r n i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e and
i m p i e m e n t a t i o n of a u n i f o r m p l a n i s p r e s e n t e d by t h e r e c o r d ,
w e f i n d ample e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g t h e q u o t e d f i n d i n g s . For
example, t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r of t h e p r o p e r t y v a l u a t i o n d e p a r t m e n t
o f t h e Department o f Revenue was c a l l e d a s a n a d v e r s e w i t n e s s
by t h e t a x p a y e r s . H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t , t o h i s knowledge, there
was no s t a t e - w i d e p l a n f o r r e a p p r a i s a l a t t h e t i m e o f t h e L a i r d
appraisal. He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a l t h o u g h some p l a n s have
s i n c e been f o r m u l a t e d , none would employ t h e same methods u s e d
by James R . Laird & Associates. A review of t h e r e c o r d f i n d s t h i s
c e s t i m o n y t o b e u n c o n t r a d i c t e d , and c e r t a i n l y a d e q u a t e t o s u p p o r t
t h e quoted f i n d i n g s of f a c t .
Second, i s t h e c o m p a r i s o n o f a p p r a i s a l s between p r o p e r t i e s
i n Lewis and C l a r k County and o t h e r c o u n t i e s . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t
found :
"The a p p r a i s e d v a l u e o f r u r a l a n d u r b a n improve-
m e n t s f o r p r o p e r t y l y i n g w i t h i n Lewis and C l a r k
County f o r t h e f i s c a l y e a r 1973-74 were a s h i g h
o r higher than t h e appraised v a l u e of s i m i l a r
p r o p e r t i e s l y i n g i n comparable c o u n t i e s o u t s i d e
o f Lewis a n d C l a r k County f o r t h e same p e r i o d
of time."
"XI.
"T'he r e a p p r a i s a l o f p r o p e r t y l y i n g w i t h i n L e w i s
a n d C l a r k County c o n d u c t e d by James R . L a i r d
s A s s o c i a t e s and a d o p t e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t
3EPARTMENT OF REVENUE and i t s o f f i c e r s , a g e n t s
and employees f o r i m p l e m e n t a t i o n f o r t h e f i s c a l
y e a r 1974-75 h a s r e s u l t e d i n p r o p e r t y w i t h i n
L e w i s and C l a r k County b e i n g a p p r a i s e d s u b s t a n -
t i a l l y h i g h e r t h a n s i m i l a r p r o p e r t y i n comparable
c ~ u n t i e s u t s i d e o f L e w i s and C l a r k County."
o
A g a i n , t h e s t a t e a r g u e s t h e q u o t e d f i n d i n g s a r e con-
c r a r y t o t h e evidence presented a t t h e t r i a l and, a g a i n , w e
Jisagree. T a x p a y e r s c a l l e d a n e x p e r t who, a f t e r b e i n g d u l y
q u a l i f i e d a n d , a f t e r l a y i n g t h e p r o p e r f o u n d a t i o n , formed
similar conclusions on the basis of his investigations. The
state called an expert who drew different conclusions on the
basis of his own investigation. This Court has held on numer-
ous occasions--the trier of fact is best situated to determine
the credibility of witnesses and weigh their testimony. For a
recent discussion of the applicable principles see Holenstein v.
Andrews , Mont . , 530 P.2d 476, 32 St.Rep. 41. The testi-
mony of the taxpayers1 expert here is sufficient to support the
quoted findings of fact.
Accepting as facts the absence of a state-wide appraisal
plan and the disproportionate appraisal made on Lewis and Clark
property, we turn to the legal questions presented. The district
court concluded that the adoption of the Laird appraisal would
require taxpayers to bear a disproportionate share of Montana's
tax burden, in violation of the equal protection requirements
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
Article 11, Section 4, 1972 Montana Constitution. The use of
the appraisal was also found to violate the due process require-
ments of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and Article 11, Sections 17 and 29, 1972 Montana
Constitution. Finally, the district court found the appraisal
violated the provisions of Title 84, Chapter 4, R.C.M. 1947,
which requires general and uniform appraisal, assessment and
equalization of all taxable property in the state.
In bringing this appeal, the state challenges all of these
conclusions of law. We will not discuss the United States Con-
stitutional questions in this opinion, since the appeal can be
decided on the basis of Montana's Constitution and statutes.
Section 84-429.12, R.C.M. 1947, provides in pertinent
part :
"It is hereby made the duty of the state
d e p a r t m e n t of revenue t o implement t h e pro-
v i s i o n s of t h i s a c t by p r o v i d i n g :
"2. For a g e n e r a l and uniform method of
a p p r a i s i n g c i t y and town l o t s .
" 3 . For a g e n e r a l and u n i f o r m method of
a p p r a i s i n g r u r a l and urban improvements."
A " g e n e r a l and uniform method of a p p r a i s i n g " n e c e s s a r i l y
r e q u i r e s t h a t e a c h a p p r a i s a l o r r e a p p r a i s a l must be p a r t of a
p l a n which p r o v i d e s t h a t a l l s i m i l a r p r o p e r t i e s w i l l be v a l u e d
i n a l i k e manner. The p l a i n meaning o f t h e s t a t u t o r y language
a d m i t s of no o t h e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The a b s e n c e of s u c h a p l a n ,
a s discussed e a r l i e r i n t h i s opinion, thus prevents lawful im-
p l e m e n t a t i o n of t h e L a i r d a p p r a i s a l .
A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n s 4 and 1 7 , 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n
compel t h e same r e s u l t . These s e c t i o n s g u a r a n t e e e q u a l p r o t e c -
t i o n and due p r o c e s s t o t h e t a x p a y e r s a g g r i e v e d h e r e . The L a i r d
a p p r a i s a l was found t o i n c r e a s e Lewis and C l a r k County t a x a b l e
v a l u a t i o n s t o a l e v e l i n e x c e s s of v a l u a t i o n s of s i m i l a r p r o p e r t y
i n other counties. The o b v i o u s r e s u l t , and t h a t found by t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t , i s a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e s h a r e o f t h e t a x burden p l a c e d
upon L e w i s and C l a r k County t a x p a y e r s .
W f i n d t h e v i o l a t i o n s of t h e c i t e d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l pro-
e
visions a r e patent. However, s i n c e i t h a s a l r e a d y been e s t a b l i s h e d
t h a t u s e of t h e a p p r a i s a l was u n l a w f u l under t h e s t a t u t e c i t e d ,
we w i l l n o t l e n g t h e n t h i s o p i n i o n w i t h a complete d i s c u s s i o n of
these constitutional violations. Authorities a r e i n accord,
h o l d i n g t h a t v i o l a t i o n s of s t a t u t o r y u n i f o r m i t y r e q u i r e m e n t s
g e n e r a l l y r e s u l t i n v i o l a t i o n s of e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n - d u e p r o c e s s
requirements. 7 1 Am J u r 2d. S t a t e and L o c a l T a x a t i o n , S158, and
cases footnoted t h e r e . I n s o h o l d i n g , we a r e aware of t h e abund-
a n c e o f a u t h o r i t y which f i n d s no v i o l a t i o n of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o r
s t a t u t o r y mandates i n t h e temporary i n e q u a l i t i e s which accompany
a c y c l i c a l p l a n of r e a p p r a i s a l . An e x c e l l e n t d i s c u s s i o n of
a p p l i c a b l e law i n t h i s r e g a r d i s found i n H i l l o c k v . Bade, 22
Ariz.App. 46, 523 P.2d 97, and i n t h e A n n o t a t i o n , 76 ALR2d 1077.
Here, t h e f a t a l f l a w i n t h e s t a t e ' s p o s i t i o n i s t h e ab-
s e n c e o f any p l a n . Without such a p l a n , t h e r e i s no a s s u r a n c e
of u n i f o r m i t y of a p p r a i s a l method o r of s e q u e n t i a l s e l e c t i o n
property f o r reappraisal. The s t a t e ' s p o s i t i o n i s even weaker
t h a n t h a t of t h e t a x i n g o f f i c i a l s i n S p a r k s v . McCluskey, 84
A r i z . 283, 327 P.2d 295, 297, where t h e Arizona c o u r t held,:
"We c a n n o t s u b s c r i b e t o t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t
g r o s s l y i n e q u a l v a l u e s by t h e u s e of a s p e c i f i c
method of a s s e s s m e n t may be p l a c e d on a s m a l l
p o r t i o n o f a c l a s s of p r o p e r t y and remain sub-
j e c t t o t h e disproportionately excessive value
f o r a n i n d e f i n i t e number of y e a r s i n t h e f u t u r e
u n t i l t h e t a x i n g o f f i c i a l s c a n g e t around t o
u s i n g t h e same method upon t h e o t h e r l i k e prop-
erties. "
I t i s c l e a r t h e s t a t e ' s proposed i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of t h e
L a i r d a p p r a i s a l i s p r o h i b i t e d by Montana c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and
s t a t u t o r y provisions. I n s o h o l d i n g , we do n o t p r o h i b i t t h e u s e
o f c y c l i c a l p l a n s o f r e a p p r a i s a l , nor do we h o l d t h a t s u c h a
p l a n c o u l d n o t b e g i n w i t h a r e a p p r a i s a l o f t h e p r o p e r t y i n Lewis
and C l a r k County. The s t a t e h a s t h e l e g a l a u t h o r i t y t o d e t e r m i n e
t h e o r d e r of r e a p p r a i s a l . W hold only t h a t t h e s t a t e ' s d e t e r -
e
m i n a t i o n s must be a p a r t of a g e n e r a l and uniform p l a n f o r re-
appraising a l l l i k e property i n t h e s t a t e .
The s t a t e a l s o c o n t e n d s t h e t a x p a y e r s s h o u l d have been
required t o exhaust t h e i r s t a t u t o r y , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e remedies
before bringing t h i s challenge i n t h e courts. The p r o c e d u r e
s u g g e s t e d would r e q u i r e h e a r i n g s b e f o r e t h e c o u n t y t a x a p p e a l
board ( s e c t i o n 84-603, R.C.M. 1947) w i t h a s u b s e q u e n t a p p e a l , i f
u n s u c c e s s f u l , b e f o r e t h e s t a t e t a x a p p e a l board ( s e c t i o n 84-
709, R.C.M. 1947).
I n a n e a r l y c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e s e s t a t u t e s (which have
since been amended in respects not relevant here), this Court
held, in Belknap Realty Co. V. Simineo, 67 Mont. 359, 365, 215
"The statutes having made ample provision
whereby a taxpayer may have any alleged exces-
sive or erroneous assessment or valuation of
his property reviewed by the county and state
boards of equalization, this remedy is exclusive
except in cases where fraud or the sdo2tion of a
kund,amentallywrong principle of assessment is
shown." (Emphasis supplied. )
The state's use of an unconstitutional and illegal appraisal
here is the type of "fundamentally wrong principle" of appraisal
for which specific exception was made ir Belknap. Were it other-
wise, we would have the anomalous situation of an administrative,
quasi-judicial board passing on constitutional and statutory
questions presented by this appeal.
Tax appeal boards are particularly suited for settling
disputes over the appropriate valuation of a given piece of
property or a particular improvement, and the judiciary cannot
properly interfere with that function. Blair v. Potter, 132
Mont. 176, 315 P.2d 177. The instant case does not concern the
value of a specific tract of land within Lewis and Clark County,
but rather the constitutional and statutory correctness of im-
plementing a discriminatory reappraisal. That determination is
an appropriate function of the courts.
In Conrad v. Managhan, 157 Mont. 335, 485 P.2d 948, this
Court noted that when a taxing authority lacks the statutory
power to increase appraisals, an aggrieved taxpayer may seek
equitable relief in the courts. Conrad speaks both to the ad-
ministrative remedy issue and the injunctive relief issue raised
by the state in the instant case. The state was outside its
statutory authority in attempting to implement the Laird appraisal.
Under these facts, taxpayers may proceed in the courts to seek
injunctive relief.
However, t h e s c a t e a r g u e s s e c t i o n 93-4203 (4), R.C.M.
L 9 4 7 , ; + r o n i b i t s i s s u a n c e o f ail i n j u n c t i o n p r e v e n t i n g e x e c u t i o n
af p u b l i c s t a t u t e s by p u b l i c o f f i c e r s , a n d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t h e r e i g n o r e d t h a t l i m i t a t i o n on i t s e q u i t a b l e powers.
While t h e c i t e d s e c t i o n d o e s p r o h i b i t e n j o i n i n g t h e e x e c u t i o n
of s t a t u t o r y d u t i e s , s e c t i o n 84-4505, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s f o r
a n i n j u n c t i o n where t h e t a x , o r a p a r t t h e r e o f s o u g h t t o b e
2njoined, i s i l l e g a l o r u n a u t h o r i z e d by law. Heretofore, we
h e l d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e L a i r d a p p r a i s a l would b e i l l e g a l a n d
unauthorized. The s u g g e s t e d d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e s t a t u t o r y
u s e o f t h e word " t a x " a n d t h e o p e r a t i v e f a c t o f a n " a p p r a i s a l n
here i s without substance. The ~ a i r d p p r a i s a l would h a v e been
a
used a s t h e b a s i s f o r c o m p u t a t i o n o f t a x e s .
This Court's r e f u s a l t o recognize t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n is
admittedly c o n t r a r y t o d i c t a c o n t a i n e d i n S t a t e e x r e l . K e a s t
v . ~ r i e y ,1 4 5 Mont. 521, 402 P . 2 d 405. I n Keast, an i n j u n c t i o n
2 r o h i b i t i n g u t i l i z a t i o n of a c e r t a i n v a l u a t i o n f o r t a x purposes
was q u a s h e d . The i n j u n c t i o n had b e e n i s s u e d w i t h o u t n o t i c e ,
and p l a i n t i f f s had shown no i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y . 'Those g r o u n d s ,
il-i t h e m s e l v e s , were s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t q u a s h i n g t h e i n j u n c t i o n ,
and tile C o u r t e x p r e s s l y r e c o g n i z e d t h a t f a c t . Nonetheless, it
went on t o f i n d t h e i n j u n c t i o n was a l s o banned by s e c t i o n 93-4203,
H.Z.M. 1947. For reasons h e r e t o f o r e s t a t e d , t h a t holding i s
expressly overruled.
The p r e f e r a b l e l a w i s e n u n c i a t e d i n Hames v . C i t y o f
P o l s o n , 123 Mont. 469, 479, 215 P . 2 d 950, where i t was h e l d :
" * * * p u b l i c b o d i e s and p u b l i c o f f i c e r s may
be r e s t r a i n e d by i n j u n c t i o n f r o m p r o c e e d i n g i n
v i o l a t i o n of t h e law, t o t h e p r e j u d i c e of t h e
public, o r t o t h e i n j u r y of i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s
* * * .I'
The p r o p r i e t y of i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f i s a l s o r e c o g n i z e d by M o n t a n a ' s
s k a t u t e g o v e r n i n g payment of t a x e s u n d e r p r o t e s t . S e c t i o n 84-4504,
"The remedy h e r e b y p r o v i d e d s h a l l s u p e r s e d e
t h e remedy of i n j u n c t i o n znd a l l o t h e r r e m e d i e s
which m i g h t b e i n v o k e d t o p r e v e n t t h e c o l l e c t i o n
o f t a x e s o r l i c e n s e s a l l e q e d t o be i r r e a u l a r l v A
l e v i e d o r demanded, e x c e p t i n u n u s u a l cases
where t h e remedy p r o v i d e d i s deemed by t h e c o u r t
t o be i n a d e q u a t e . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )
The i n t e n t o f t h e L e g i s l a t u r e t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e r e t e n t i o n of
e q u i t a b l e r e m e d i e s i n t a x a t i o n c a s e s where s t a t u t o r y r e m e d i e s
prove inadequate i s e v i d e n t . To h o l d t h a t e q u i t a b l e r e m e d i e s
a r e n o t a v a i l a b l e f o r h a l t i n g u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and i l l e g a l
a p p r a i s a l s would p r o d u c e t h e s t r a n g e r e s u l t o f p r o h i b i t i n g en-
joining u t i l i z a t i o n of an i l l e g a l a p p r a i s a l while allowing t h e
e n j o i n i n g o f l e v i e s computed upon t h a t a p p r a i s a l . Section 84-
4505, R.C.M. 1947. W e w i l l n o t s o hold.
The f a c t s d i s c u s s e d t h r o u g h o u t t h i s o p i n i o n s u f f i c i e n t l y
answer t h e s t a t e ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e d o e s n o t s u p p o r t
t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment. The i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e L a i r d
a p p r a i s a l f a i l s b e c a u s e t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t h a t it
was n o t a p a r t o f a g e n e r a l and u n i f o r m , s t a t e - w i d e p l a n . We
c a n n o t a p p r o v e u s e o f a n a p p r a i s a l which would r e s u l t i n a d i s -
c r i m i n a t o r y , d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e t a x b u r d e n on Lewis and C l a r k
County t a x p a y e r s , when t h e a p p r a i s a l s u f f e r s t h e d e f i c i e n c i e s
already noted.
F i n a l l y , t h e t a x p a y e r s ' motion t h a t p o r t i o n s of t h e
s t a t e ' s a p p e l l a t e b r i e f s h o u l d be s t r i c k e n w i l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d .
S i n c e o u r d e c i s i o n h o l d s i n f a v o r of t h e t a x p a y e r s , t h e y have
n o t been p r e j u d i c e d by t h e m a t e r i a l s i n t h e s t a t e ' s b r i e f - - w h e t h e r
properly included t h e r e i n o r not.
The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .
Justice
We concur: