AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves an appeal by Petitioner Houston Wall from a decision rendered by the Office of the State Engineer. The core issue pertains to Wall's failure to comply with statutory service requirements, which is considered a jurisdictional defect. This non-compliance led to the dismissal of his appeal at the district court level.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the statutory service requirements are unconstitutional, at least as applied in this case, due to the inability to personally serve all protestants and the claimed impossibility of service by publication (para 3).
• Respondents-Appellees: Supported the district court's dismissal of the appeal, emphasizing the jurisdictional necessity of complying with statutory service requirements and disputing the petitioner's claims regarding the impossibility of service by publication (paras 1-2, 4-6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in dismissing the appeal due to the petitioner's failure to comply with statutory service requirements.
• Whether the statutory service requirements are unconstitutional, at least as applied in this case, due to the petitioner's inability to personally serve all protestants and the claimed impossibility of service by publication.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order dismissing the appeal.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi with Judges Michael E. Vigil and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, held that the petitioner's failure to comply with the statutory service requirements constituted a jurisdictional defect that neither the district court nor the Court of Appeals could overlook (para 2). The Court noted that jurisdiction does not lie in the courts until statutorily required administrative procedures are fully complied with, and the courts have no authority to alter the statutory scheme (para 2). The Court was unpersuaded by the petitioner's arguments against the constitutionality of the statutory service requirements, noting that alternative methods of service were available but not diligently pursued by the petitioner (paras 3-6). The Court concluded that the petitioner failed to act with due diligence in attempting to serve the parties through publication pursuant to the specific procedure set forth in the statute or by seeking court approval of an abbreviated publication schedule (para 5). The claim of impossibility regarding service by publication was rejected, as the petitioner conflated the requirements associated with two separate methods of effectuating service and failed to diligently pursue viable options (para 6).