Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

June 22, 1988
Mr. Perry L. Adkisson Opinion NO. JM-920
Chancellor
Texas A & M University System Re: Construction of Texas
319 System Building Commercial Fertilizer Con-
College Station, Texas 77843 trol Act, chapter 63 of
the Agriculture Code
(RQ-1240)
Dear Mr. Adkisson:
You ask two questions about the procedures to be
followed by the Director of the Texas Agriculture Experiment
Station in enforcing the Texas Commercial Fertilizer Control
Act, chapter 63 of the Agriculture Code. These are as
P
follows:
1. Whether a fertilizer manufacturer has
a legal right to notification of violative
analytical findings by the Texas Feed and
Fertilizer Control Service and to exhaustion
of legal remedies prior to the service
notifying purchasers of these findings; and
2. Whether the Director of the Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station is compelled
to give equal weight to analytical findings
of commercial laboratories when a manu-
facturer contests the results of the state
chemist.
Chapter 63 of the Agriculture Code provides for
regulation of the manufacture and distribution of commercial
fertilizer. Agric. Code §§ 63.031, 63.051, 63.091, 63.121;
see also Agric. Code 55 63.001, 63.002 (defining "commercial
fertilizer" and other terms). The duties set out in chapter
63 of the Agriculture Code are the responsibility of the
Director of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, to be
performed by the Texas Feed and Fertilizer Control Service
under his direction. The Agriculture Code prohibits the
manufacture and distribution of commercial fertilizer
without a permit issued by the service and requires
p. 4606
Mr. Perry L. Adkisson - Page 2 (JM-920)
containers of fertilizer to be labeled with certain
information, including the grade of the fertilizer and the
guaranteed analysis of plant nutrients in it. Agric. Code
93 63.031, 63.051.
Subchapter G of chapter 63 provides remedies for viola-
tions of the chapter, including a stop-sale order, con-
demnation, warnings, and a suit to enjoin a violation or
threatened violation., Agric. Code 55 63.121, 63.122,
63.124. Subchapter Ii sets~ out criminal penalties for
violation of chapter 63 and for other specific offenses
which include distribution of misbranded, adulterated,
unregistered, or unlabeled fertilizer.
The service has authority to take samples of fertilizer
for analysis under section 63.091 of the code:
f, 63.091. Inspection and Sampling: Entry Power
In order to determine if commercial ferti-
lizer is in compliance with this chapter, the
service is entitled to:
(1) enter during regular business hours -,
and inspect anv Dlace of business, mill,
plant. buildina. or vehicle, and to 013811
anv bin, vat. or Darcel. that is used in
the manufacture. transDortation. imDorta-
tion. sale. or storaae of a commercial
fertilizer or iS SUSDeCted of containina a
commercial fertilizer: and
(2) take samples from fertilizer found
during that inspection. (Emphasis added.)
Agric. Code 5 63.091. Each sample is sent to the service,
with a report providing the following information:
(1) the name or brand of commercial
fertilizer sampled;
(2) the serial number of the sample:
(3) the manufacturer or cruarantor of the
samDle. if known;
(4) the name of the Derson in Dossession
of the lot samDles [sic];
p. 4607
Mr. Perry L. Adkisson - Page 3 (JM-920)
(5) the date and place of taking the
sample: and
(6) the name of the person who took the
sample. (Emphasis added.)
Agric. Code 5 63.093(b).
The service thus is authorized to take fertilizer
samples from persons or entities other than the
manufacturer. Section 63.093(b)(3) of the code indicates
that the name of the manufacturer may be unknown, while
section 63.093(b)(4) indicates that the person in possession
of the lot sampled1 may be different from the manufacturer.
The service is entitled to enter "any place of business,
mill, plant, building or vehicle," and may open any
container "that is used in the manufacture, trans-
portation, importation, sale, or storage of commercial
fertilizer" or that is "suspected of containing a commercial
fertilizer. . . .I1 Agric. Code § 63.093(b). Thus, the
sample may have been taken from the manufacturer, trans-
porter, seller, or purchaser of the fertilizer. your letter
states that the service routinely acquires samples of
manufactured fertilizers as they appear in the marketplace.
The samples collected are analyzed by the office of the
State Chemist. See Agric. Code 5 63.003(c) (appointment of
a state chemist). If the service finds that a commercial
fertilizer is in violation of a provision of chapter 63 of
the Agriculture Code, it is required by section 63.094 to
"notify the manufacturer or other person who caused the
1. Section 63.093(b)(4) should read as follows: "the
name of the person in possession of the lot sampled. . . .I1
The prior version of section 63.093(b)(4) referred to the
"lot sampled.01 Acts 1961, 57th Leg., ch. 27, § 8(b), Cd),
at 54, 58. Chapter 141 of the Agricultural Code, which
regulates commercial feed, includes section 141.103 on
identification of feed samples. Section 141.103, which is
virtually identical to section 63.093 of the code, provides
that the report to the service should contain "the name of
the person in possession of the lot SamDled. . . .I' Agric.
Code § 141.103(b)(4). (Emphasis added.) Chapters 63 and
141 of the Agricultural Code were amended by a single bill
adopted by the 68th Legislature. Acts 1983, 68th Leg., ch.
349, at 1851. The small change in section 63.093(b)(4)
appears to have resulted from a typographical error.
p. 4608
Mr. Perry L. Adkisson - Page 4 (JM-920)
fertilizer to be distributed." Agric. Code g 63.094(a). The
manufacturer or distributor of the fertilizer then has an
opportunity to have an independent analysis of the sample
collected by the service. Agric. Code 5 63.094(b).
Your first question arises from the service's practice
of sending purchasers of fertilizer a copy of the state
chemist's analysis three days after sending it to the
manufacturer. YOU state that a fertilizer manufacturer
maintains that this is an improper procedure because (1) the
state has no statutory authority to inform the purchaser
until remedies specified in section 63.094 have been
exhausted and the issue has been resolved and (2) notifica-
tion prior to resolution is a denial of the manufacturer's
due process rights. We will first consider the authority of
the service to inform the purchaser of the chemical analysis
prior to exhaustion of the remedies set out in section
63.094.
You have submitted copies of the notification sent to
the manufacturer and then to the purchaser. The cover
letter states that, on the basis of an enclosed laboratory
analysis report, the fertilizer is in violation of the Texas
Commercial Fertilizer Control Act. It requests the manu-
facturer to review all factors which might have resulted in
this deficiency, invites it to supply additional information
which will justify changing the conclusions of the report,
and informs it that it may request an independent analysis.
The laboratory analysis report accompanying the cover
letter states the percentages of chemical components
guaranteed for the fertilizer and the percentages shown by
analysis of the sample. It includes the following
statement:
LABORATORY ANALYSIS DEMONSTRATES THIS
PRODUCT TO BE EITHER DEFICIENT OR EXCESSIVE
IN ONE OR MORE OF THE LABEL GUARANTEES
HIGHLIGHTED ABOVE.
THE SAMPLE RESULTS FALL OUTSIDE THE RANGE
OF SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL ERROR. THE MT
OF PRODUCT IS THUS CONSIDERED TO BE IN
VIOLATION OF THE ECONOMIC PROVISIONS OF THE
TEXAS COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER CONTROL ACT.
THE SAMPLE WILL BE RETAINED FOR FIFTEEN
(15) CALENDAR DAYS FOLLOWING THE DATE OF THIS
REPORT TO ALLOW THE MANUFACTURER TO REQUEST A
PORTION FOR HIS OWN USE. WITHIN THIS TIME,
p. 4609
Mr. Perry L. Adkisson - Page 5 (JM-920)
THE MANUFACTURER IS FURTHERMORE PROVIDED THE
OPPORTUNITY OF. REQUESTING ANALYSIS BY TWO
INDEPENDENT LABORATORIES SELECTED BY THE
STATE CHEMIST. THE RESULTS OF SUCH INDEPEN-
DENT ANALYSES WILL BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERA-
TION IN MAKING A FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE
LEGAL STATUS OF THE SAMPLE. A CORRECTED
REPORT WOULD BE ISSUED IF THE STATUS CHANGED.
UNLESS CHANGED, THIS ANALYSIS WILL APPEAR AS
A VIOLATIVE LISTING IN THE ANNUAL PUBLICATION
OF THE OFFICE OF THE TEXAS STATE CHEMIST.
Much of the information set out in section 63.093(b)
of the Agriculture Code appears on the analysis report,
including the name of the manufacturer or guarantor and the
name of the possessor. In both of the sample notices you
submitted, copies of the cover letter and laboratory
analysis report were sent to the entity identified as the
possessor of the fertilizer lot from which the sample was
taken. Thus, in these cases, the service took samples from
the purchaser of the fertilizer, and then sent him the
results of its analysis of those samples.
No provision of chapter 63 states that the service may
or must send a copy of the report to the possessor or to the
purchaser. We do not, however, believe express statutory
authority is necessary for the service to send the purchaser
or possessor of fertilizer its chemical analysis of that
product.
In Terre11 v. Soarks, 135 S.W. 519 (Tex. 1911), the
Supreme Court of Texas stated as follows:
The grant of an express power carries with it
by necessary implication every other power
necessary and proper to the execution of the
power granted. When the law commands any-
thing to be done, it authorizes the perfor-
mance of whatever may be necessary for
executing its commands.
Terrell' v. SDarkS, 135 S.W. 521 (Tex. 1911) (quoting
Sutherland on Statutory Construction, 5 341). See Stauffer
v. c of San Antonio, 344 S.W.2d 158 (Tex. 1961) (civil
service commission does not have implied authority to
resolve fact questions of fireman's fitness for
reinstatement). In Bullock v. Calvert, 480 S.W.2d 367 (Tex.
1972) the court stated that
p. 4610
Mr. Perry L. Adkisson - Page 6 (JM-920)
every specific, permissible act of a public
officerneed not be expressed in a statute: we
imply the authority to do those acts necessary
to achieve the power or object expressly
granted, because the Legislature must have
intended to grant the constituent details
within the larger commission.
Bullock v. Calvert 480 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. 1972) (dicta, no
statute authorized'secretary of state to spend state funds
to conduct party primary elections).
In SeXtOn v. Mount Olivet Cemetarv Association, 720
S.W.2d 129 (Tex. App. - Austin 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.), the
court stated that the legislature generally intends that an
agency should have by implication such authority as is
necessary to carry out specific powers and duties, so that
the statutory purpose might be achieved.
We would not expect a state agency to have express
authority to engage in correspondence relevant to its duties
or to send copies of its correspondence to interested
persons. See aenerallv V.T.C.S. art. 6252-17a, 5 6(15)
(informationavailable to public by agency policy as of the
effective date of the Texas Open Records Act). In our
opinion, the service has implied authority based on sections
63.091, 63.093, and 63.094 of the Agriculture Code to send a
copy of the laboratory report to the purchaser or possessor
of the fertilizer. The person from whom the service has
obtained the fertilizer and who is identified in the report
accompanying the sample as the possessor of the fertilizer
sampled has a special interest in learning the result of the
analysis. The purchaser, if different from the possessor,
is similarly interested in that information. No provision
of chapter 63 requires the service to keep the fertilizer
analysis a secret from everyone but the manufacturer.
Comoare Agric. Code g 63.094 with Agric. Code § 63.095
person may initiate submission of sample for analy:E'
results may not identify manufacturer and may not b;!
published). See also Agric. Code § 63.005(a)(2) (at least
annually, director shall make public results of analysis of
fertilizer samples). In sending the purchaser or possessor
a copy of the analysis report, the service provides
information generated by its inspection and testing powers
to parties who were involved in the exercise of those powers
and who have a significant interest in the results of the
testing.
This practice of the service helps carry out the -
purposes of chapter 63. When the Texas Fertilizer Control
p. 4611
Mr. Perry L. Adkisson - Page 7 (JM-920)
Act was adopted in 1961, it included the following emergency
clause:
The fact that present laws are not adequate
to regulate the manufacture and distribution
of commercial fertilizers in Texas: the fact
that consumers need uniform guarantees and
labeling of fertilizers which are offered to
them: and the further fact that it would be of
great material advantage to have the laws of
Texas conform insofar as practicable with the
present day practices of consumers, manu-
facturers and distributors of commercial
fertilizer, and to afford maximum orotection
to consumers of commercial fertilizers, create
an emergency. . . . (Emphasis added.)
Acts 1961, 57th Leg., ch. 37, 5 19, at 54, 61-62. An
emergency clause may be considered if it will aid the
court in ascertaining the legislative intent. Trawalter
v., Schaefer, 179 S.W.Zd 765 (Tex. 1944) ; Gov't Code
5 311.023(l). A related purpose is stated in the bill
analysis for House Bill No. 1510 of the 68th Legislature,
the bill which adopted the present version of chapter 63 of
the Agriculture Code. The bill analysis -states the
following as background information:
The guaranteed quality of commercial feeds and
fertilizers are essential for the successful
operation of the agricultural and livestock
industries of Texas. Texas A & M University,
through the Agricultural Experiment Station,
is charged with the regulatory responsibility
of guaranteeing of the labeling accuracy and
ingredient quality of these products as well
as pet foods and homeowner products.
House Committee on Agriculture and Livestock, Bill Analysis
to H.B. No. 1510, 68th Leg. (1983). See Gov't Code
§ 311.023(3) (in construing a statute, court may consider
legislative history).
Informing the purchaser or possessor of fertilizer of
the laboratory analysis report will help carry out the
legislative purpose of protecting consumers. The purchaser
or possessor can refrain from applying the fertilizer to the
soil if it has not yet been applied. If it has been, he has
an opportunity to determine whether supplemental applica-
tions should be made to correct the balance of plant
nutrients in the soil.
p. 4612
Mr. Perry L. Adkisson - Page 8 (JM;920)
Your letter states that original findings are mailed to
the purchaser three days after the mailout to the manu-
facturer so that the manufacturer will have an opportunity
to initiate a monetary settlement with the purchaser. By
informing the purchaser of the original findings, the
service encourages manufacturers to be responsible for
the quality of their products and to, be accountable to
consumers. In this way, the consumer protection purposes of
chapter 63 are carried out. &.g Gov't Code 5 311.021(5) (in
construing a statute, a public interest is favored over a
private interest).
We note that the predecessor to section 63.094(a)
provided that, in case the fertilizer was found in violation
of chapter 63,
the director shall notify the manufacturers or
other person who caused the fertilizer to be
distributed and the consianee. (Emphasis
added.)
Acts 1981, 67th Leg., ch. 388, at 1012, 1147 (adopting
Agriculture Code). The "consignee" is not the purchaser or
consumer, but the person to whom the product is delivered -.
for transportation or sale. Webster'.s Third New Inter-
national Dictionary; m Charles M. Stieff, Inc. v. Citv
of San Antonio, 111 S.W.2d 1086 (Tex. 1938) (defining
V*consignment*' and "consigned"). The deletion of the
mandatory requirement that the consignee be notified does
not demonstrate any legislative intention to restrict the
service's implied authority to send purchasers of fertilizer
and possessors of the lots sampled copies of the analysis
report. We conclude that the service has implied statutory
authority to send copies of laboratory analysis reports to
the purchaser of the fertilizer that was tested.
We next consider whether the due process clauses of
the United States and Texas Constitutions entitle the
fertilizer manufacturer to notice and a hearing before
the laboratory report is sent to the purchaser of the
fertilizer. The .Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution and article I, section 19, of the
Texas Constitution prevent the state from depriving persons
of property or liberty without due process of law. The
manufacturer is a corporation and not a natural person and
thus cannot claim due process protection for the liberty
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment or by article I,
section 19, of the Texas Constitution. Pierce v. Societv of
Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); Western Turf Association v.
Greenberq, 204 U.S. 359 (1901); Northwestern National Life
P. 4613
Mr. Perry L. Adkisson - Page 9 (JM-920)
_Inurance Co. Ri- 203 U.S. 243 (1906); Annot. 47
L.:d.2d 975, 98?(1975).'
The reputation of a natural personal person is analyzed
as a liberty interest rather than a property interest under
the due process clause. See Wisconsin v. Constantineau 400
U.S. 433 (1971). Even if the manufacturer were a naiural
person who could invoke due process protection for a liberty
interest, and if the transmittal of the fertilizer analysis
to his customer could be considered damaging to his
reputation, the due process clause would not afford him the
notice and hearing he seeks. In paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693
(1976) r the Supreme Court considered whether a citizen's
charge of defamation stated a claim for relief under 42
U.S.C. 5 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme
Court held that city and county police officials did not
violate the plaintiff's due process rights when they
circulated to local area merchants a circular that described
him as an "active shoplifter." The Supreme Court held that
reputation alone, apart from some more tangible interests
such as employment, was neither a liberty nor property
interest sufficient to invoke the procedural protection of
the due process clause. 424 U.S. at 711-712. See Marrero
.- v. Citv of Hialeah, 625 F.2d 499 (5th Cir. 1980) (injuries
to personal and business reputations caused by unlawful
search and seizure are compensable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as
element of damages). The court moreover said that the due
process clause does not extend a person the right to be free
of injury "wherever the State may be characterized as the
tortfeasor." 424 U.S. 701.
We next consider whether the manufacturer has
property interest which would invoke the protection of th:
due process clause.
Property interests are not created by the United States
Constitution, but are created and defined by rules or
understandings that derive from an independent source such
as state law. Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986
(1984) (trade secrets); Board of Reaents v. Roth, 408 U.S.
564 (1972) (public employment). Intangible interests, such
as contracts, liens, and trade secrets, have been recognized
as property rights entitled to constitutional protection.
Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co. suora (information recognized
as trade secrets under Mis&.ouri law constitutes property
protected by Fifth Amendment's taking clause).
The manufacturer in this case asserts a property
interest in good will. Texas courts have recognized good
C
will as property which consists of the advantage or benefit
P. 4614
Mr. Perry L. Adkisson - Page 10 (JM-920)
acquired by an establishment beyond the mere value of the
capital stock, funds, or property employed therein, in
consequence of the patronage of habitual customers which it
receives
on account of its local position, or common
celebrity, or reputation for skill,
influence, or punctuality, or from 0th::
accidental circumstances or necessities, or
even from ancient partialities or prejudices.
Taormina v. Culicchia 355 S.W.2d 569, 573 (Tex. Civ. App. -
El Paso 1962, writ 'ref#d n.r.e.); Texas & Pacific
Railwav v. Mercer, 90 S.W.2d 557 (Tex.?36). The owner may
recover damages for the destruction of good will. Texas &
Pacific Railwav Co. v. Mercey, m. Good will is not,
however, compensable as a separate and independent item of
recovery when the state takes land occupied by a business in
eminent domain proceedings. State v. Za ba 418 S.W.2d 499
(Tex. 1967); Citv of Dalla Priol o, 2:: S:W.2d 176 (Tex.
1951). Nor is the goodswyll of a physician's medical
practice considered to be property subject to division upon
divorce. Wail v. Naib, 486 S.W.2d 761 (Tex. 1972).
Texas courts have moreover held that both liberty
interests and property interests are held subject to the
exercise of the state's police power. Citv f Colleae
Station v. Turtle Rock Core 680 S.W.Zd 802 (Gex. 1984)
(alleged taking of property;; Ci tv of New Braunfels v.
Waldschmit 207 S.W. 303 (Tex. 1918); Houston & Texas Cent.
Railwav v.'Dallas, 84 S.W. 648 (Tex. 1905). State police
power is grounded upon the public need for safety, healthy
security, and protection of the general welfare of the
community. Jefco. Inc. v. Lewis, 520 S.W.2d 915 (Tex. Civ.
APP. - Austin 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The wisdom of the
exercise of the police power is largely for legislative
rather than judicial determination. J& at 922.
Sending the fertilizer analysis report to the purchaser
in our opinion, a reasonable exercise of police power to
iF&ect the general welfare by protecting consumers from
mislabeled products and by limiting damage to the agri-
culture of Texas that might result from distribution and
application of mislabeled fertilizer. The purchaser is also
informed of the manufacturer's right to have an independent
analysis of the fertilizer and of the possibility that a
corrected report might be issued. This information should
minimize the effects on the manufacturer's customer rela-
tions, if any, caused by sending the laboratory report to
the customer. We believe the Texas courts would hold that
p. 4615
Mr. Perry L. Adkisson - Page 11 (JM-920)
good will does not include patronage attributable to the
consumer's ignorance of possible product deficiencies
discovered by the legislatively authorized testing program
set out in chapter 63 of the Agriculture Code. See
aenerallv Open Records Decision No. 48 (1974) (sect=
3(a)(4) of the Open Records Act does not protect competitive
situation based on public ignorance of content or
wholesomeness of food products). a uternational Business
Machines Corooration v. United States of $merica, 298 U.S.
131 (1936) (no exception to Clayton Act for trying clause
directed at protecting good will).
Since we conclude that no property interest is affected
by governmental action in this case, we need not decide
whether the review procedures set out in section 63.094
would accord due process. See, u, Ewina v. Mvtinaer &
Casselberrv. Inc., 339 U.S. 5' 94 (1950) (due process clause
not violated Iny federal statute authorizing seizure of
misbranded articles upon agency finding, made without
hearing, of probable cause that misbranded article was
dangerous to health or that labeling was fraudulent or
misleading to the injury and damage of consumer): Buttfield
. Strmnah an , 192 U.S. 470 (1904) (no deprivation of
.- property without due process in tea examiner's summary
seizure of imported tea based on his judgment that its
quality did not meet federal standards for wholesomeness);
Annot. 69 L. Ed. 2d 1044 (1981) (application of due process
guarantees to summary administrative deprivation of property
interest).
Your second question is:
Whether the Director of the Texas Agri-
cultural Experiment Station is compelled to
give equal weight to analytical findings of
commercial laboratories when a manufacturer
contests the results of the state chemist.
Section 63.094 of the Agriculture Code provides in
part:
(b) After receiving a notice under Sub-
section (a) of this section, the manufacturer
or other person who caused the fertilizer to
be distributed may request that the service
submit portions of the sample analyzed to
other chemists for independent analysis.
After receiving a request, the service shall
submit two portions of the sample analyzed to
two qualified chemists selected by the
P. 4616
.
Mr.. Perry L. Adkisson - Page 12 (JM-920)
-,
service. If requested, the service shall
also submit one portion of the sample to the
person requesting independent analysis. A
request under this subsection must be filed
with the service before the 16th day
following the day on which notice is given.
(c) Each of the chemists selected by the
service under Subsection (b) of this section
shall analyze the portion of the sample and
certify findings to the service under oath.
The findings shall be prepared in duplicate
and the service shall forward one copy of
each chemist's findings to the person who
requested independent analysis.
(d) The three chemical analvses obtained
under this section mav be considered in
determinina whether a violation of this
chaoter has occurred. (Emphasis added.)
Agric. Code 5 63.094. Section 63.094(d) does not dictate
the weight to be accorded any of the three analyses in
determining whether a violation of chapter 63 has occurred.
Nor does it state that the analysis results will be
dispositive of any question as to violation. It merely
authorizes the use of the three chemical analyses in
proceedings to determine whether a violation of chapter 63
has occurred. See Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary
(1983) (wmay" used nearly interchangeably with "can*@). See
w Agric. Code subch. G, H (administrative and judicial
proceedings for enforcing chapter 63). Neither the director
of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station nor any court
that hears a case alleging violation of chapter 63 is
compelled by section 63.094 of the Agricultural Code to give
equal weight to analytical findings of commercial
laboratories when a manufacturer has requested independent
analysis of fertilizer samples pursuant to section
63.094(b).
SUMMARY
The Texas Feed and Fertilizer Control
Service has implied authority to notify the
possessor or purchaser of fertilizer that
laboratory analysis of the product demon-
strates it to be out of compliance with the
requirements of chapter 63 of the Agriculture
Code. By sending this notification to the
purchaser or possessor, the service does not
p. 4617
Mr. Perry L. Adkisson - Page 13 (JM-920)
deprive the fertilizer manufacturer of
property without due process of law. Section
63.094(d) of the Agriculture Code does. not
require that equal weight be given to
analytical findings of commercial laboratories
when a manufacturer contests the results of
the state chemist's analysis.
Jzyh
MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
MARY KELLER
First Assistant Attorney General
Lou MCCREARY
Executive Assistant Attorney General
JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY
Special Assistant Attorney General
RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee
Prepared by Susan L. Garrison
Assistant Attorney General
p. 4618