Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Sweeney v. Great West Transportation

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided January 14, 1986No. 15809Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBistline, Justice

I concur with Part I of the majority opinion, which holds that Sweeney presented sufficient medical evidence of temporary disability during the period of June 28 through July 16, 1983. However, I disagree with the majority’s procedure in applying the substantial competent evidence test in this case, where the decision below was made on the same, “cold” record that is now before us. Rather, if this Court were to fulfill its function as did other courts before us, we would review the record and make our determination. Having done so, I am inexorably drawn to the conclusion that the decision of…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Booth v. City of BurleyIdaho Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Mandes v. Employment SEC. AgencyIdaho Supreme Court · 1953
  3. Phipps v. Boise Street Car Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1940
  4. Roby v. RobyIdaho Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Parsons v. WrbleIdaho Supreme Court · 1911

17 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