Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Idaho Home Health, Inc. v. Bear Lake County

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided June 19, 1996No. 21969Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partTrout, Justice

In Part II of its opinion, the Court concludes that the mere use of certain undefined terms in the home health statutes “shows the legislature intended that counties or county hospitals could offer home health services if they satisfy the substantive requirements.” Because I do not agree that the use of these terms in a statute granting authority to the department of health and welfare is a sufficient grant of authority to the boards of county commissioners, I must respectfully dissent.

Idaho Const, art. 18, § 11 provides: “County, township, and precinct officers shall perform such duties as…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
  2. Bailey v. NessIdaho Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Prothero v. Board of County CommissionersIdaho Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Shillingford v. Benewah CountyIdaho Supreme Court · 1929

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API