|
Click here to download letter from UDC dated Aug 27, 2008
Click here to download response to UDC dated Sep 2, 2008
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Click here to download UDC letter to Shareholders 8/2008
In the Letter to the UDC Stockholders Ms. Wolferts refers to 1972, where the
Supreme Court examined the Partition Act. What she fails to tell the stockholders is this was dicta (a statement of opinion).
Affiliated Utes is an anomaly in that having been
dismissed by the trial court for lack of jurisdiction, the case never went through a normal litigation of facts and law relevant
to what powers, if any, had been properly delegated to UDC. A record on a particular issue must normally be developed before
a higher court will consider deciding the matter. If an issue deemed necessary to an appellate court's determination of
a case has not been fully litigated below, the higher court generally remands the case for further hearings rather then render
a decision based on facts initially developed and argued on appeal. This is a fundemental process in the judicial system.
The fact these procedures were not followed in Affiliated Utes also supports the view that the language regarding
UDC's authority is nothing more than dicta (a statement of opinion). Finally, the Supreme Court's comments about AUC's rights with respect to UDC are not couched interms of a
holding. They are simply prefaced by the rather off-hand comment that they "deserved a further word".
|
