Legal Opinion

Deer Creek Highway District v. Doumecq Highway District

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided August 3, 1923PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMccarthy, J.

— Three causes of action are set forth in the amended complaint upon which this action is based. In the first cause of action appellant bases his right to recover upon contract and alleges that appellant, respondent and the Whitebird Highway District are duly organized highway districts; that appellant highway district is bounded on the north by respondent highway district, and on the east by Salmon River, which is the western boundary of the Whitebird Highway District, and also the eastern boundary of respondent highway district, and the Whitebird Highway District is located and adjacent to…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Norton v. Shelby CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Hitchcock v. GalvestonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  3. Argenti v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  4. Zottman v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
  5. Pimental v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Whitney v. Continental Life and Accident CompanyIdaho Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Village of Heyburn v. Security Savings & Trust Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Common School District Number 61 v. Twin Falls Bank & Trust Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Worlton v. DavisIdaho Supreme Court · 1952
  5. Burnham v. HendersonIdaho Supreme Court · 1929

19 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