Legal Opinion
Suppiger v. Enking
Idaho Supreme Court
Decided May 25, 1939No. 6696PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GIVENS, J. —
Plaintiffs’ application for writ of mandate, alleges in substance an appropriation was made for expenses of the administration, by the Industrial Accident Board composed of the first three plaintiffs, the fourth being the board’s disbursing officer (sec. 43-1301, I. C. A.; 1935 Ida. Sess. Laws Third Extraordinary Session, July 28, 1936, chap. 12, p. 20, amended, 1937 Ida. Sess. Laws, chap. 9, p. 20; chap. 183, p. 303; chap. 187, p. 311; chap. 188, p. 320, and chaps. 202 and 239, Ida. Sess. Laws 1939), and that March 21, 1939, the State Board of Examiners approved and allowed…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Fergus v. RusselIllinois Supreme Court · 1915
- Busser v. SnyderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Idaho Power & Light Co. v. BlomquistIdaho Supreme Court · 1914
- Idaho Gold Dredging Co. v. BalderstonIdaho Supreme Court · 1938
- State v. KellyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1921
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Mead v. ArnellIdaho Supreme Court · 1990
- Engelking v. Investment BoardIdaho Supreme Court · 1969
- Board of County Commissioners v. Idaho Health Facilities AuthorityIdaho Supreme Court · 1975
- Nelson v. MarshallIdaho Supreme Court · 1972
- Opinion of the Justices to the House of RepresentativesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1948
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.