This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

In 2000, Davis County citizens voted on an opinion question that asked, 'Should fluoride be added to the public water supplies within Davis County?' The addition of fluoride was approved 52 to 48. Those opposed to fluoridation sought to have a revote on the issue, circulating a petition among voters so that the identical opinion question from the 2000 general election would be on the ballot during the 2002 general election. P, a nonprofit corporation organized to advocate for the public health benefits of fluoridation, questioned the constitutionality of placing the revote question on the 2002 ballot. It sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against D. The district court found in favor of P and against D. P motioned for an award of attorney fees pursuant to the private attorney general doctrine, which the district court denied.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.