Legal Opinion · Dissent

Splinter v. City of Nampa

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided April 4, 1950No. 7538, 7537Published

1DissentTaylor, Justice

The principal objection to the conclusion readied is that a new duty and a new liability is imposed upon the city, not heretofore recognized, and which is without precedent.

The primary duty of the city with respect to its streets and alleys is to “keep them in a reasonably safe condition for use by travelers in the usual modes”. Carson v. City of Genesee, 9 Idaho 244, 74 P. 862, 864, 108 Am.St.Rep. 127; Moreton v. St. Anthony, 9 Idaho 532, 75 P. 262; Powers v. Boise City, 22 Idaho 286, 125 P. 194; Baillie v. Wallace, 24 Idaho 706, 135 P. 850; Strickfaden v. Greencreek Highway Dist., 42 Idaho…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. McFarlane v. City of Niagara FallsNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
  2. Taylor v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Strickfaden v. Greencreek Highway DistrictIdaho Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Giffen v. City of LewistonIdaho Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Carson v. City of GeneseeIdaho Supreme Court · 1903

31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API