State v. McMahan
Idaho Supreme Court
1Dissent
It is useless and undesirable as a rule to express one's dissenting views. However, in the instant case, I feel bound to do so, limiting my views to that portion of the majority opinion overruling what has been the unquestioned, settled law in this jurisdiction since 1917. I will also call attention to the earlier decisions during territorial days and down to the case of State v. Lundhigh, 30 Idaho 365, 370, 164 P. 690. The majority opinion not only overrules the settled law of this jurisdiction, but disregards the great weight of authority from other jurisdictions where the same question has…
2Cases cited141 opinions
- State v. RoyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1936
- People v. CroninCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- People v. KingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- State v. MarrenIdaho Supreme Court · 1910
- State v. McClurgIdaho Supreme Court · 1931
136 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.