Hickman v. Lunden, 8456
| Decision Date | 05 July 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 8456,8456 |
| Citation | 78 Idaho 191,300 P.2d 818 |
| Parties | Claude HICKMAN, Palmer W. Otterson, Charles A. Thompson, Ewell J. Waller, Lee S. Robison, Reuben Preuninger, Iven Rickel and Herbert B. Stevens, Plaintiffs-Applicants, v. A. E. LUNDEN, Adolph Molstead and C. T. Larson, constituting the Board of County Commissioners of Kootenai County, Idaho; James D. Riggs, County Auditor of Kootenai County, Idaho; and Kootenai Hospital District, purporting to be and acting as a public or quasi-municipal corporation, Defendants. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Robert McFadden, Plummer, and J. N. Leggat, Boise, for plaintiffs-applicants.
Sidney E. Smith, and James W. Ingalls, Pros. Atty., Coeur d'Alene, for defendants.
The 1955 Legislature enacted Chapter 184, Session Laws of 1955, providing for the organization and government of hospital districts. In pursuance of the provisions of such Chapter 184, proceedings were initiated in Kootenai County to organize the Kootenai Hospital District. The Board of Commissioners of Kootenai County, after due compliance with the preliminary requirements of said Chapter 184, caused an election to be held on the question of the organization of such hospital district. The Board thereafter having determined that the proposal for the organization of Kootenai Hospital District had been duly carried at such election, entered its order on February 20, 1956, organizing the Kootenai Hospital District.
The plaintiffs herein are residents and taxpayers of Kootenai County. They filed their petition in this court praying for the issuance of a writ of prohibition, prohibiting any further proceedings or acts in connection with the purported Kootenai Hospital District by the defendants on the ground that the Board of County Commissioners of Kootenai County acted in excess of its jurisdiction in making the order organizing such hospital district. An alternative writ of prohibition was issued by this court. A return having been made by defendants, the cause was presented by oral arguments in open court and is now before us for decision.
Defendants have presented several claimed defenses of a procedural nature. We do not deem it necessary to discuss or decide the merits of such defenses for the reason that plaintiffs have not made a prima facie case for the issuance of a writ of prohibition.
That part of Section 3 of Chapter 184, 1955 Session Laws, material in this cause, reads as follows:
'The petition shall set forth:
* * *
* * *
'(3) A general description of the boundaries of the district or territory to be included therein with such certainty to enable a property owner to determine whether or not his property is within the district.
'(4) A map showing the general boundaries of such district in relation to outstanding natural monuments and terrain features.
* * *
* * *
'Provided, however, that no such district shall be organized unless it shall appear that the boundaries of said district are wholly within the limits of a single county; that said territory proposed to be organized shall contain not less than one hundred thousand acres of contiguous territory with an assessed valuation of not less than ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00), that there shall be no unnatural extension of the boundaries of said district.'
The order of the Board of County Commissioners of Kootenai County organizing Kootenai Hospital District, fixed the territory embraced within such hospital district as the entire county of Kootenai. The claim of plaintiffs that the order in question was without or in excess of the jurisdiction of the Board of County Commissioners to make and enter, is based solely upon the contention that the provisions of the quoted statute do not permit the organization of a hospital district with boundaries coterminous with the boundaries of Kootenai County. Plaintiffs contend that the foregoing provisions of the statute should be interpreted and construed to mean that a hospital district to be organized thereunder must consist of an area less than a whole county.
In support of their contention, plaintiffs urge that Chapter 35, Title 31, Idaho Code, provides for county hospitals for indigents of the county and others; that Chapter 37, Title 31, Idaho Code, provides for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re WD170, 35175.
...[T]he meaning is so doubtful or obscure that "reasonable minds might be uncertain or disagree as to its meaning." Hickman v. Lunden, 78 Idaho 191, 195, 300 P.2d 818, 819 (1956). "However, ambiguity is not established merely because different possible interpretations are presented to a court......
-
Canty v. Idaho State Tax Com'n
...the meaning is so doubtful or obscure that "reasonable minds might be uncertain or disagree as to its meaning." Hickman v. Lunden, 78 Idaho 191, 195, 300 P.2d 818, 819 (1956). "However, ambiguity is not established merely because different possible interpretations are presented to a court. ......
- Despain v. Despain
-
State v. Browning
...the meaning is so doubtful or obscure that "reasonable minds might be uncertain or disagree as to its meaning." Hickman v. Lunden, 78 Idaho 191, 195, 300 P.2d 818, 819 (1956). "However, ambiguity is not established merely because different possible interpretations are presented to a court. ......