Michael Landers, David Guthrie, Kenneth Johnson, and J.w. Looney, Appellants v. Gail H. Stone, Execu — Hart, J…

Summary

Justice Hart concurred in the judgment but would resolve the case on standing grounds, concluding that none of the appellants alleged an actual, non-speculative controversy in the pleadings. She reasoned that standing may be considered on appeal even without a cross-appeal and that the alleged possibility of Judge Landers choosing continued service over retirement benefits was too contingent to support declaratory relief. Justice Danielson, dissenting, and Chief Justice Brill, dissenting separately, would have held the forfeiture provisions unconstitutional; Justice Baker, concurring, defended the majority’s analysis and would affirm as to the remaining appellants on standing grounds.