State v. Teninty
Idaho Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
In construing a law that meaning should be adopted which is most consonant with its obvious policy. Interpretation should serve to effectuate the object and purpose of a statute. Parsons v. Wrble, 1912, 21 Idaho 695, 702, 123 P. 638; Wood v. Independent School District, 1912, 21 Idaho 734, 740, 124 P. 780.
A statute providing for or defining an offense created by a previous act, and providing a materially different punishment takes precedence over the former act whether the punishment is reduced or increased. Repeal of the prior inconsistant act is inevitable where the later act is a…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Purity Extract & Tonic Co. v. LynchSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- United States v. YuginovichSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. HaworthIdaho Supreme Court · 1948
- State v. HoltMontana Supreme Court · 1948
- Big Wood Canal Co. v. ChapmanIdaho Supreme Court · 1927
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. EvansIdaho Supreme Court · 1952
- State v. DavidsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1957
- State v. RoderickIdaho Supreme Court · 1962
- State v. BellIdaho Supreme Court · 1962
- Reynolds Construction Co. v. County of Twin FallsIdaho Supreme Court · 1968
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.