Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantstatutecompliancestatutory law

plaintiffstatutewillstatutory law

Related Cases

Russman v. Luckett, 391 S.W.2d 694

Facts

The plaintiffs, consisting of taxpayers, parents of school children, and students, filed a suit against the Commissioner and the Department of Revenue in Franklin Circuit Court, challenging the tax assessment practices in Kentucky. They argued that property was being assessed at significantly lower percentages than its fair cash value, violating Section 172 of the Kentucky Constitution and related statutes. The court found that the assessment practices had been in place for many years, leading to disparities in tax burdens across different counties and districts.

It is not only admitted but has become a matter of common knowledge that real estate and tangible personal property in Kentucky are assessed for tax purposes at varying percentages substantially less than 100 percent of fair cash value.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether the constitutional provision requiring property to be assessed at fair cash value had been impliedly repealed by years of noncompliance by public officials, and whether the plaintiffs had the right to challenge the current tax assessment practices.

The perennial questions are raised in this case: Who can challenge the status quo, and what should and can be done about it?

Rule

The court applied the principle that constitutional provisions and statutory laws must be enforced, regardless of long-standing practices that violate them. It emphasized that the assessment of property for taxation must be at its fair cash value as mandated by Section 172 of the Kentucky Constitution and related statutes.

Section 172 of the Kentucky Constitution, in its entirety, provides: 'All property, not exempted from taxation by this Constitution, shall be assessed for taxation at its fair cash value, estimated at the price it would bring at a fair voluntary sale; and any officer, or other person authorized to assess values for taxation, who shall commit any willful error in the performance of his duty, shall be deemed guilty of misfeasance, and upon conviction thereof shall forfeit his office, and be otherwise punished as may be provided by law.'

Analysis

The court analyzed the arguments presented by the defendants, who claimed that the constitutional provision had lost its legal effect due to long-standing custom. However, the court rejected this notion, stating that continued violation of a law does not imply its repeal. It reinforced that the law remains enforceable and that the plaintiffs had a right to seek a declaration of rights and injunctive relief to compel compliance with the law.

It is said that the constitutional provision and the statutes (KRS 132.440, 132.450 and 133.150) no longer have any legal effect because abrogated by a contrary custom or public policy of 75 years standing.

Conclusion

The court reversed the lower court's dismissal of the complaints and remanded the case with directions to enforce compliance with the constitutional requirement for property assessment at fair cash value, effective January 1, 1966.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the Franklin Circuit Court with directions to that court to enter a judgment: (1) Declaring that section 172 of the Kentucky Constitution and the statutory law implementing that section require all property in Kentucky (not exempted by the Constitution) to be assessed for tax purposes at its fair cash value and that this section of the Constitution and the statutory law implementing it are valid, subsisting and binding upon all public officials.

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed in the case as the court recognized their right to challenge the tax assessment practices and mandated compliance with the constitutional provisions. The court's reasoning emphasized the importance of enforcing the law as it stands, regardless of past practices.

We conclude the plaintiffs not only have a right to prosecute this action but they, and those they represent, and the public, are entitled to relief.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 222

Robbins v. Yusem, 559 So.2d 1185, 15 Fla. L. Weekly D554

WDKY-TV, Inc. v. Revenue Cabinet, Com. of Ky., 838 S.W.2d 431, 20 Media L. Rep. 1507

Heidelberg Central, Inc. v. Director of Dept. of Revenue, 476 S.W.2d 502

Little Falls Hospital v. Board of Assessors of City of Little Falls, 75 Misc.2d 731, 348 N.Y.S.2d 856