State ex rel. Pigott v. Porter, 189 P. 619 (Mont. 1920). · Go Syfert
Search
State ex rel. Pigott v. Porter, 189 P. 619 (Mont. 1920). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases · …t is fair to assume that, when the egislature enumerates certain instances in which an act or thing may be done, or when certain privileges may be enjoyed, it names all that it contemplates; otherwise what is the necessity of specifying any? at p. 620 ⚠ not in text
19 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: CLARK CNTY. DEP'T. OF FAM. SERV. v. DIST. CT. (SHARP) (nev, 2025-03-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) CLARK CNTY. DEP'T. OF FAM. SERV. v. DIST. CT. (SHARP)
Nev. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
hen the legislature enurnerates certain instances in which an act or thing may be done, or when certain privileges rnay be enjoyed, it names all that it contemplates; otherwise what is the necessity of specifying any?
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) RURAL TELEPHONE CO. VS. PUB. UTIL. COMM'N. OF NEV.
Nev. · 2017 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
t is fair to assume that, when the egislature enumerates certain instances in which an act or thing may be done, or when certain privileges may be enjoyed, it names all that it contemplates; otherwise what is the necessity of specifying any?
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) RURAL TELEPHONE CO. VS. PUB. UTIL. COMM'N. OF NEV. (2×)
Nev. · 2017 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
t is fair to assume that, when the egislature enumerates certain instances in which an act or thing may be done, or when certain privileges may be enjoyed, it names all that it contemplates; otherwise what is the necessity of specifying any?
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Norris
Bankr. D. Nev. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Ex Parte Arascada, 44 Nev. 30, 35 , 189 P. 619 (1920) (failure of statute to include a matter is indication that exclusion was intended).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE ex rel. PIGOTT, Relator
v.
PORTER, State Auditor
No. 4,593.
Montana Supreme Court.
Apr 19, 1920.
189 P. 619
Mr. Jas. A. Walsh, for Relator., Mr. S. C. Ford, Attorney General, and Mr. Frank Woody, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
Being, Brantdy, Cooper, Holloway, Hurdy, Matthews, Takes.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
MR. JUSTICE HOLLOWAY

delivered the opinion of the court.

The state efficiency and trade commission employed William T. Pigott to prepare the proposed legislative bills deemed necessary to carry out the recommendations of the commission. In all other respects the facts involved herein are identical with the facts presented in State ex rel. Pew v. Porter, ante, p. 535, 189 Pac. 618. Upon the authority of that case the motion to quash is overruled, and the peremptory writ is directed to issue forthwith.

Associate Justices Hurdy, Matthews and Cooper concur. Mr. Chief Justice Brantdy, being absent, takes no part in the foregoing decision.