Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Idaho Supreme Court, 1921

State v. Williams

State v. Williams
Idaho Supreme Court · Decided July 1, 1921 · Budge, Dunn, Lee, McCarthy, Rice
34 Idaho 144; 201 P. 834; 1921 Ida. LEXIS 81

State v. Williams

Concurring Opinion

BUDGE, J.

I adhere to my views heretofore expressed and therefore concur.

Rice, C. J., and Lee, J., dissent.

Opinion of the Court

MCCARTHY, J.

In this ease the facts and questions of law are substantially the same as those presented to this court in the ease of State v. Henry Ricks and Edward Levine, ante, p. 122, 201 Pac. 827. Upon the authority of that case, the judgment of conviction herein is affirmed.

Rice, C. J., and Dunn, J., concur.

Concurring Opinion

BUDGE, J.,

concurs in the conclusions reached, for reasons given in the case of State v. Ricks and Levine, supra.

Lee, J., dissents. (November 1, 1921.)

070rehearing

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.

MCCARTHY, J.

The questions raised by the petition for rehearing in this ease are the same as those raised by the petition for rehearing in the ease of State v. Henry Ricks and Edward Levine, ante, p. 122, 201 Pac. 827. Upon the authority of that decision, the petition for rehearing, of the above-named appellants and each of them, is denied.

Dunn, J., concurs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.

↑