Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hamilton v. Rybar

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided June 6, 1986No. 16279Published

1DissentBistline, Justice

The question here which the majority avoids can be stated thusly: Can a procedural practice of longstanding and regular utilization become a part of the law?

Here, without answering that question, the majority also avoids any confrontation with the singular fact that the custom was indulged by both of the parties. It is true, as the majority asserts, that plaintiff Connie Hamilton’s motion for reconsideration was not filed within ten days after the entry of the order denying her motion for new trial. What is equally true, however, and unmentioned by the majority, is that a hearing was had on…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Parker v. LevySupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Obray v. MitchellIdaho Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Wheeler v. McIntyreIdaho Supreme Court · 1979
  4. McDonald v. Safeway Stores, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Kleiber v. City of Idaho FallsIdaho Supreme Court · 1986

1 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