Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Simmons v. City of Moscow

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided May 29, 1986No. 14958, 14991Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBistline, Justice

**

I concur in Justice Huntley’s opinion for the Court, except for that portion which supplants the district court’s determination of the “benefit derived” issue.

Briefly I will point out our difference. A requirement of the L.I.D. code is that assessments must be against “property benefited by the making of the improvements.” I.C. § 50-1703(b). Section 50-1707(c) provides (inferentially) that benefits by improvements will be according to:(1) A front foot method(2) A square foot method(3) A combination of (1) and (2), or(4) In proportion to benefits derived by improvements to the property.

We…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. In Re Assessment for Improving Superior StreetSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
  2. State v. Hayden Miller Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
  3. City of St. Louis Park v. EngellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
  4. State, by Mondale v. MecklenburgSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
  5. Zuelch v. DroegeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1953

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API