Opinion

State v. Corcoran

  • 7 Idaho 220
  • 61 P. 1034
  • 1900 Ida. LEXIS 42
Court
Idaho Supreme Court
Filed
Jul 3, 1900
Status
Published
Author
Huston
On the bench
Huston, Quarles, Sullivan
Cited by
37 cases

“[T]he Venters have identified and are arguing for a class of which they are not a member and, therefore, they have no standing . . . .”

How later courts described this case

  • “[T]he Venters have identified and are arguing for a class of which they are not a member and, therefore, they have no standing . . . .”
  • attorney from neighboring county had de facto authority to prosecute when district court appointed him and the responsible prosecutor stated he could not attend to his duties
  • even if the trial court mistakenly appointed a special prosecutor, his acts were those of an officer de facto and were entitled to recognition as such

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

ON REHEARING.

HUSTON, C. J.

We have considered the petition for a rehearing filed in this ease. There is no question presented by the petition which has not been fully and repeatedly presented to and passed upon by this court. A reiteration of our conclusions would add nothing to their force, and a detailed review of the questions presented by the petition would be but an act of supererogation. The petition for a rehearing is denied.

Quarles and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.