Berry v. Koehler (1962)

Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170, 176 , 369 P.2d 1010, 1013 (1961).

Ctr., 151 Idaho 889, 895 , 265 P.3d 502, 508 (2011) (quoting Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170, 177 , 369 P.2d 1010, 1013 (1962)).

“The wisdom, justice, policy, or expediency of a statute are questions for the legislature alone.” Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170, 177 , 369 P.2d 1010, 1013 (1962).

As we said in Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170, 177 , 369 P.2d 1010, 1013 (1962), “The wisdom, justice, policy, or expediency of a statute are questions for the legislature alone.” • We have recited the language from the Willys Jeep case or similar language numerous times, usually without even addressing whether we considered the unambiguous statute absurd as written.

Barry at 177, 369 P.2d 1010 .

I § 13. [8] We held in Jones v. State Board of Medicine, 97 Idaho 859 , 555 P.2d 399 (1976), cert. denied 431 U.S. 914 , 97 S.Ct. 2173 , 53 L.Ed.2d 223 (1977), that "the sole standard applicable to the due process provisions of the federal and state constitutions is whether the challenged law bears `a rational relationship to the preservation and promotion of the public welfare.'" Id. at 866, 555 P.2d at 406 (quoting Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170, 177 , 369 P.2d 1010, 1014 …

As we said in Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170, 177 , 369 P.2d 1010, 1013 (1962), “The wisdom, justice, policy, or expediency of a statute are questions for the legislature alone.” Id.; see also Nelson, 166 Idaho at 820 , 464 P.3d at 306 (“[T]he courts ‘are not free to rewrite a statute under the guise of statutory construction.’ ” (quoting State v. Doe (In re Doe), 147 Idaho 326, 329 , 208 P.3d 730, 733 (2009))).

Alphonsus Regional Medical Center, “The wisdom, justice, policy, or expediency of a statute are questions for the legislature alone.” 151 Idaho 889, 895 , 265 P.3d 502, 508 (2011) (quoting Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170, 177 , 369 P.2d 1010, 1013 (1961)).

See Messerli v. Monarch Memory Gardens, Inc., 88 Idaho 88, 96 , 397 P.2d 34, 39 (1964) (regarding the constitutionality of a statute protecting against fraud in contracts for funerary services and body disposal); Johnston v. Boise City, 87 Idaho 44, 52 , 390 P.2d 291, 295 (1964) (regarding eminent domain and compensation); Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170, 176 , 369 P.2d 1010, 1013 (1961) (regarding a statute defining the practice of dentistry).

See Messerli v. Monarch Memory Gardens, Inc., 88 Idaho 88, 96 , 397 P.2d 34, 39 (1964) (regarding the constitutionality of a statute protecting against fraud in contracts for funerary services and body disposal); Johnston v. Boise City, 87 Idaho 44, 52 , 390 P.2d 291, 295 (1964) (regarding eminent domain and compensation); Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170, 176 , 369 P.2d 1010, 1013 (1961) (regarding a statute defining the practice of dentistry).

See Messerli v. Monarch Memory Gardens, Inc., 88 Idaho 88, 96 , 397 P.2d 34, 39 (1964) (regarding the constitutionality of a statute protecting against fraud in contracts for funerary services and body disposal); Johnston v. Boise City, 87 Idaho 44, 52 , 390 P.2d 291, 295 (1964) (regarding eminent domain and compensation); Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170, 176 , 369 P.2d 1010, 1013 (1961) (regarding a statute defining the practice of dentistry).

As we said in Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170, 177 , 369 P.2d 1010, 1013 (1962), “The wisdom, justice, policy, or expediency of a statute are questions for the legislature alone.” Id.

Ctr., 151 18 Idaho 889 , 895, 265 P.3d 502, 508 (2011) (quoting Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170, 177 , 369 P.2d 1010, 1013 (1962)).

Indeed, as this Court stated in Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170, 177 , 369 P.2d 1010, 1013 (1962), “[t]he wisdom, justice, policy, or expediency of a statute are questions for the legislature alone.” Interpreting subsection (2) to require an investigation to be into waste or a violation of law, rule or;regulation would essentially constitute revising the statute to add the “waste and violations of a law, rule or regulation” language that was omitted from that subsection, albe…

“The wisdom, justice, policy, or expediency of a statute are questions for the legislature alone.” Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170, 177 , 369 P.2d 1010, 1013 (1961).

Indeed, as this Court stated in Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170, 177 , 369 P.2d 1010, 1013 (1962), “[t]he wisdom, justice, policy, or expediency of a statute are questions for the legislature alone.” Interpreting subsection (3) to include the date of admission would essentially constitute revising the statute to add the “beginning with language” that was deleted, albeit possibly inadvertently, in the 2011 amendment.

Health, 204 N.E.2d 281, 286-89 (Mass. 1965) (striking down law banning the sale of imitation coffee cream because the law did not prevent fraud or market confusion); Zale-Las Vegas, Inc. v. Bulova Watch Co., 396 P.2d 683, 691-93 (Nev. 1964) (striking down law that bound third parties to non-compete provisions in private contracts because the law did not promote competition); Berry v. Koehler, 369 P.2d 1010, 1014-15 (Idaho 1961) (upholding regulation of dental prosthetics as …

Health, 204 N.E.2d 281, 286-89 (Mass. 1965) (striking down law banning the sale of imitation coffee cream because the law did not prevent fraud or market confusion); Zale-Las Vegas, Inc. v. Bulova Watch Co., 396 P.2d 683, 691-93 (Nev. 1964) (striking down law that bound third parties to non-compete provisions in private contracts because the law did not promote competition); Berry v. Koehler, 369 P.2d 1010, 1014-15 (Idaho 1961) (upholding regulation of dental prosthetics as …

Health, 348 Mass. 414 , 204 N.E.2d 281, 286-89 (1965) (strildng down law banning the sale of imitation coffee cream because the law did not prevent fraud or market confusion); Zale-Las Vegas, Inc. v. Bulova Watch Co., 80 Nev. 483 , 396 P.2d 683, 691-93 (1964) (striking down law that bound third parties to non-compete provisions in private contracts because the law did not promote competition); Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170 , 369 P.2d 1010, 1014-15 (1961) (upholding regulati…

In re SRBA Case No. 39576, 128 Idaho 246, 263 , 912 P.2d 614, 631 (1995); Newlan v. State, 96 Idaho 711, 716 , 535 P.2d 1348, 1353 (1975); Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170, 177 , 369 P.2d 1010, 1013 (1962).

See also Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170 , 369 P.2d 1010 .

See Verska, 151 Idaho at 895 , 265 P.3d at 508 (“The wisdom, justice, policy, or expediency of a statute are questions for the legislature alone.” (quoting Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170, 177 , 369 P.2d 1010, 1013 (1962)).

See Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170, 177 , 369 P.2d 1010, 1013 (1961).

See Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170, 177 , 369 P.2d 1010, 1013 (1961).

See In re Permit No. 36-7200, 121 Idaho 819, 824 , 828 P.2d 848, 853 (1992) (stating that “[t]he wisdom, justice, policy, or expediency of a statute are questions for the Legislature alone”) (citing Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170, 177 , 369 P.2d 1010, 1013 (1961)).

See In re Permit No. 36-7200, 121 Idaho 819, 824 , 828 P.2d 848, 853 (1992) (stating that “[t]he wisdom, justice, policy, or expediency of a statute are questions for the Legislature alone”) (citing Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170, 177 , 369 P.2d 1010, 1013 (1962)).

See Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170 , 369 P.2d 1010 (1961).

See also, Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170 , 369 P.2d 1010 (1961).