Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Banzhaf v. Carnation Co.

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided April 29, 1983No. 14306Published

1Concurrence

BISTLINE, Justice,

specially concurring.

Agreeing that this case should be reversed and remanded in light of our opinions in Sines v. Appel, 103 Idaho 9, 644 P.2d 331 (1982), and Iverson v. Gordon Farming Co., 103 Idaho 527, 650 P.2d 669 (1982), I have joined the opinion of Justice Huntley.

As noted by the Court, the Commission’s view was that a workmen’s compensation award could only be reopened “upon a showing of fraud or a change in condition.” In doing so, the Commission relied upon several of this Court’s opinions:

“The Idaho Supreme Court consistently has held that an approved compensation…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Sines v. AppelIdaho Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Wanke v. Ziebarth Const. Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Rodius v. Coeur D'Alene Mill Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Zapantis v. Central Idaho Mining & Milling Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Nitkey v. Bunker Hill & Sullivan Mining & Concentrating Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1952

3 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