Legal Opinion · Dissent

County of Bannock v. City of Pocatello

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided February 19, 1986No. 15685Published

1DissentDonaldson, Chief Justice

I dissent from the conclusion of the majority in this case with respect to the plain meaning of I.C. § 20-605 and the duty it places on a city whose officers arrest violators of state motor vehicle laws. One does not have to read that statute “in a vacuum” to conclude that the majority’s extremely narrow interpretation of the city’s duty to pay the costs of confining such violators could not have been intended by the legislature when I.C. § 20-605 was passed in 1973.

Indeed, I agree that I.C. § 20-605 must be read in the context of other statutory provisions governing the allocation of the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Moore v. PanishCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  2. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. HaworthIdaho Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Goodin v. Board of Education of Independent School District No. 14Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1979
  4. Union Pacific Railroad v. State Tax CommissionIdaho Supreme Court · 1983

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API