Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Mead v. Arnell

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided March 13, 1990No. 18231Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJohnson, Justice

I

INTRODUCTION.

I find much in the opinion of the Court with which I can agree. However, in certain crucial areas, I must depart from what the majority has said.

The majority opinion admirably expresses the principle of separation of powers among the three departments of our state government. It also correctly points out that this Court has jurisdiction to consider the issue presented to us by the Board of Health and Welfare. Nor do I quarrel with the characterization of the rules of state agencies as not being equivalent to statutory law. (Throughout I will use the term “rule” in the sense used…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. NelsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Howard v. MissmanIdaho Supreme Court · 1959
  3. State Ex Rel. Taylor v. TaylorIdaho Supreme Court · 1938
  4. State v. HeitzIdaho Supreme Court · 1951
  5. Abbot v. State Tax CommissionIdaho Supreme Court · 1965

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