Hill v. State, Department of Employment
Idaho Supreme Court
1DissentBistline, Justice
Justice Huntley’s special concurrence, but for the fact that it is a special concurrence rather than a dissent, says exactly what needs to be said. I concur fully with the first three paragraphs. As to his final paragraph, I submit that there is almost never an explanation forthcoming from the postal department as to why the United States mail does not go through. On occasions it has been explained as being due to a vehicle collision, a train derailment, or an aircraft crash. The fact is, however, the ordinary person of a necessity is obliged to leave to the postal department whether there is…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Carter v. StateIdaho Supreme Court · 1985
- Striebeck v. Employment Security AgencyIdaho Supreme Court · 1961
- Swanson v. Employment Security AgencyIdaho Supreme Court · 1959
- Department of Employment v. DrinkardIdaho Supreme Court · 1977