Legal Opinion · Dissent

Howard v. Felton

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided February 18, 1963No. 9171Published

1DissentTaylor, Justice

with whom SPEAR, District Judge, concurs (dissenting).

In addition to the facts stated in the majority opinion, it should be recorded here that the solicitation of Johnson and Whit-lock by officer Howard was not by accident or happenstance. The officer testified he was sent to Lewiston to investigate illegal sales of liquor as follows:

“Q. You came in here to investigate certain situations didn’t you?
“A. Yes.
“Q. And what situations?
“A. Illegal sales of liquor.
“Q. What illegal sales of liquor?
“A. By the Lewiston Cab Company.
“Q. And what men at the Lewiston Cab Company?
“A. Mr. Johnson and Mr.…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. State v. LordNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Singer v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1922
  3. People v. HillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  4. Reed v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1909
  5. Lott v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1913

13 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