Moon v. Investment Bd.
| Decision Date | 19 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 12005,12005 |
| Citation | 548 P.2d 861,97 Idaho 595 |
| Parties | Marjorie Ruth MOON, as State Treasurer, Plaintiff, v. The INVESTMENT BOARD of the State of Idaho, Defendant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Wayne L. Kidwell, Atty. Gen., Boise, Wayne P. Fuller, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Caldwell, for plaintiff.
Robert E. Smylie of Langroise, Sullivan & Smylie, Boise, for defendant.
This is an original proceeding filed by State Treasurer, Marjorie Ruth Moon, plaintiff, to compel the Investment Board of the State of Idaho, defendant, to transfer custody of the assets of the Public school Endowment Fund to her and to prohibit the Investment Board from further use of its selected custodians for the assets of the fund. A writ of prohibition was denied, and an alternative writ of mandate issued. The question is whether the alternative writ of mandate should be quashed or be made permanent.
To resolve this matter this Court must determine if there is a conflict between article IX, section 3, of the Idaho Constitution and I.C. § 57-715, et seq., particularly as to the custodial rights of the public school endowment funds. Plaintiff treasurer argues she has the right to the custody of the funds under the constitution, and defendant board claims it has the right to their custody.
Article IX, section 3, of the Idaho Constitution provides:
(Emphasis supplied.)
The treasurer relies upon the provision underlined.
Idaho Code § 57-721 provides:
'Management of permanent endowment funds by investment manager(s)- Appointment of custodian of peranent endowment funds.-The board shall select and contract with a minimum of one (1) investment manager(s) to manage the permanent endowment funds. Such investment manager(s) so selected shall, subject to the direction of the board, exert control over the funds as though the investment manager(s) were the owner thereof. The department of finance shall be responsible for insuring that the investment manager(s) comply with this act and the policies...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Reg'l Med. Ctr.
...the legislature must be given effect. Worley Highway Dist. v. Kootenai County, 98 Idaho 925, 576 P.2d 206 (1978) ; Moon v. Investment Board, 97 Idaho 595, 548 P.2d 861 (1976) ; Herndon v. West, 87 Idaho 335, 393 P.2d 35 (1964). Referring to a virtually identical Arizona statute, the Arizona......
-
City of Boise v. Frazier
...to follow that plain meaning and neither add to the statute nor take away by judicial construction. Moon v. Investment Board, 97 Idaho 595, 596, 548 P.2d 861, 862 (1976). Statutory interpretation always begins with an examination of the literal words of the statute. In re Permit No. 36-7200......
-
Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. Denney (In re Verified Petition for Writ Mandamus)
...implies.’ " Verska v. St. Alphonsus Reg'l. Med. Ctr., 151 Idaho 889, 895, 265 P.3d 502, 508 (2011) (quoting Moon v. Inv. Bd., 97 Idaho 595, 596, 548 P.2d 861, 862 (1976) ). This Court reviews the provision's language as a whole, considering the meaning of each word, so as not to render any ......
-
Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. Denney (In re Verified Petition for Writ Mandamus)
...implies.' " Verska v. St. Alphonsus Reg'l. Med. Ctr., 151 Idaho 889, 895, 265 P.3d 502, 508 (2011) (quoting Moon v. Inv. Bd., 97 Idaho 595, 596, 548 P.2d 861, 862 (1976)). This Court reviews the provision's language as a whole, considering the meaning of each word, so as not to render any w......