Legal Opinion

Plummer v. City of Fruitland

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided February 27, 2004No. 27999PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TROUT, Chief Justice.

On rehearing, Appellants Teresa and David Plummer (Plummers) appeal the district court’s decision finding that City of Fruitland Ordinance No. 388 (Ordinance), which enabled Respondent City of Fruitland (City) to grant an exclusive solid waste collection franchise to the Plummers’ competition and which made solid waste disposal by any other entity a misdemeanor, was a valid municipal ordinance. This Court’s first decision, — Idaho-, 89 P.3d 841, found this Ordinance was not valid, determining that the power to grant exclusive solid waste collection franchises was not…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. California Reduction Co. v. Sanitary Reduction WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  2. Quinlan v. Idaho Commission for Pardons & ParoleIdaho Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Coeur D'Alene Garbage Service v. City of Coeur D'AleneIdaho Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Kelso v. LanceIdaho Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal, Inc. v. Chip-It Recycling, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2001

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Potts Construction Co. v. North Kootenai Water DistrictIdaho Supreme Court · 2005
  2. State v. DoeIdaho Supreme Court · 2010
  3. State v. Michael Jay FreitasIdaho Court of Appeals · 2014
  4. Lewiston Independent School District 1 v. City of LewistonIdaho Supreme Court · 2011
  5. Linda Ciszik v. Kootenai County Bd of CommissionersIdaho Supreme Court · 2011

4 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