County of Bannock v. City of Pocatello
Idaho Supreme Court
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
- Moore v. PanishCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. HaworthIdaho Supreme Court · 1948
- Goodin v. Board of Education of Independent School District No. 14Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1979
- Union Pacific Railroad v. State Tax CommissionIdaho Supreme Court · 1983