Pullman Co. v. State Board of Equalization
Idaho Supreme Court
Original application for writ of review. “Generally, lapse of' time will not preclude the granting of the writ where the delay has resulted in no detriment.” (11 C. J. 146.) Plaintiff has not acted with due diligence in seeking to remedy the alleged wrong which has been done it. Unreasonable delay or failure to apply within the time limited by statute or established by local practice is good ground for refusing the writ.
Read the full summary
Original application for writ of review. “Generally, lapse of' time will not preclude the granting of the writ where the delay has resulted in no detriment.” (11 C. J. 146.) Plaintiff has not acted with due diligence in seeking to remedy the alleged wrong which has been done it. Unreasonable delay or failure to apply within the time limited by statute or established by local practice is good ground for refusing the writ. It is the well-settled rule, and particularly so in the western states, that where the statute fixes no definite time, the time is regulated by the statutory time within…
1Opinion of the CourtRice, J.
This is an original proceeding brought in this court to obtain a writ of review directed to the state board of equalization and commanding it to certify to this court its records in the matter of the assessment of plaintiff’s property in the state of Idaho for the year 1917.
It is alleged in the petition that the order complained of was made in the month of August, 1917. The petition was filed in this court on January 4, 1918. An alternative writ was issued, and the defendants have moved to quash the writ and to set aside the order upon the ground that the petitioner was guilty of laches, in…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Reynolds v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Thompson v. Multnomah CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1861
- Keys v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- Smith v. Superior Court of Los Angeles CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Long v. Ohio River R'y. Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1891
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Felix v. Superior Court of County of PimaArizona Supreme Court · 1962