SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Supreme Court has ruled the Davis County clerk/auditor’s office will have to pay the attorneys’ fees of the group that fought a revote for fluoridated water.The Associated Press reported earlier this week that the Utah Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling last week preventing Utahns for Better Dental Health — Davis from collecting attorneys’ fees from the county. UBDH — Davis, sued the clerk/auditor’s office and clerk/auditor Steve Rawlings in 2002 after Davis County placed the initiative on the ballot for a revote following a challenge from anti-fluoride activists. Pro-fluoride groups said the revote was a misinterpretation of the state’s referendum law.
Second District Court Judge Glen Dawson ruled in favor of UBDH —Davis, but did not grant payment of fees.
Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Christine Durham, writing for the majority, said the refusal was “at odds” with the original referendum decision.
Now, the parties must go before 2nd District Judge Glen Dawson for a fee hearing to determine how much the county will have to pay.
Originally UBDH — Davis requested $45,000 in attorneys’ fees, but Dawson rejected the award in 2003 and the pro-fluoride group appealed the decision to the Utah Court of Appeals, which sent their case back to Dawson in August 2005.
At that point the group’s claim for attorneys’ fees rose to $145,000.
Utahns for Better Dental Health — Davis attorney David Irvine said at the time that in the two years following the original filing briefs, research and the appeal added to the fees.
Davis County voters approved fluoridating the county’s drinking water (except in Woods Cross) in the 2000 election by a 52 percent vote.
It was then ordered to be implemented in 2001. Later that year, a group opposing fluoridation brought an initiative petition to Rawlings calling for a revote on the issue.
Irvine and UBDH —Davis argued the revote was illegal because the petition should have been filed as a referendum, not as an initiative.
Dawson agreed that the revote should be pulled from the ballot and UBDH —Davis asked that attorneys’ fees be awarded to the group.
On Wednesday, Irvine said he received a partial payment for his services.
He hopes the hearing, which should be scheduled soon, will recoup all his fees. “I’m very happy the (Supreme) Court ruled the way they did.”
Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Christine Durham, writing for the majority, said the refusal was “at odds” with the original referendum decision.
Now, the parties must go before 2nd District Judge Glen Dawson for a fee hearing to determine how much the county will have to pay.
Originally UBDH — Davis requested $45,000 in attorneys’ fees, but Dawson rejected the award in 2003 and the pro-fluoride group appealed the decision to the Utah Court of Appeals, which sent their case back to Dawson in August 2005.
At that point the group’s claim for attorneys’ fees rose to $145,000.
Utahns for Better Dental Health — Davis attorney David Irvine said at the time that in the two years following the original filing briefs, research and the appeal added to the fees.
Davis County voters approved fluoridating the county’s drinking water (except in Woods Cross) in the 2000 election by a 52 percent vote.
It was then ordered to be implemented in 2001. Later that year, a group opposing fluoridation brought an initiative petition to Rawlings calling for a revote on the issue.
Irvine and UBDH —Davis argued the revote was illegal because the petition should have been filed as a referendum, not as an initiative.
Dawson agreed that the revote should be pulled from the ballot and UBDH —Davis asked that attorneys’ fees be awarded to the group.
On Wednesday, Irvine said he received a partial payment for his services.
He hopes the hearing, which should be scheduled soon, will recoup all his fees. “I’m very happy the (Supreme) Court ruled the way they did.”
mwilliams@davisclipper.com
I' have been spending some much needed time with my family this holiday season, but this is an important issue that needs to be addressed since there is more to this for Davis County residents to understand.
You should read this too...
Davis must pay fees in fluoridation lawsuit
Stay Tuned...
4 comments:
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - A comment by presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is raising some eyebrows here in Utah.
Romney was asked about God and,in essence, whether God speaks to him or to LDS Church leaders.
This interview between Romney and a Boston TV station aired in early December.
His comments about the LDS Church didn't cause too much of a ripple back east.
But here in Utah, they seem to raise questions about his view of how the LDS Church was founded.
In a lengthy interview with one of Boston's most prominent journalists, Mitt Romney was asked the following:
"Should God speak to you and ask you to do something that might be in conflict with your duties as president or should he speak to your Prophet who would speak to you - how would you make that decision, how would you handle that?”
To which Romney responded: “I don't recall God speaking to me. I don't know that he has spoken to anyone since Moses and the bush or perhaps some others."
But this answer appears to contradict one of the foundations of the LDS church.
In the Church's "First Vision," a young Joseph Smith is visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ.
Smith hears one of them say, “This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!”
And if, as Romney suggests, that God hasn't spoken to anyone for thousands of years, then what happens to the LDS Church's belief in direct revelation from God to the Church's prophets?
Revelations such as the one in 1978 that blacks could hold the priesthood.
Contacted by ABC 4 News, Romney's campaign issued the following statement:
"Governor Romney is very proud of his faith and he endeavors to live by it.”
We also asked the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for a comment about Romney's statement.
But the Church politely declined our request.
Reported by Chris Vanocur
Rob, I posted on fluoride in our water. I have always supported that concept and dissed anyone who opposed it but while on vacation I picked up a Scientific American journal and read an article about too much of a good thing, i.e. fluorides. Your kids and my grandkids need to be careful.
Look at the CC post on the subject and buy the current SA on the news stands.
'08 is the year of the Democrats!
The Dictator Republican Commissioners should pay out of their own pockets for violating the law. Now their just going to want to raise taxes and fees to pay the law suit.
Sodium fluoride is a poison. It was used by Hitler to dumb down inmates of concentration camps.
It lowers IQ and exposes people to a range of diseases. It's harmful to teeth and even more harmful to health.
Science Philosophy Life
Post a Comment