necessary exception in Idaho

2010Expenditures held to be within the ordinary and necessary exception include: salaries of city officers and employees, Butler v. Lewiston, 11 Idaho 393 , 83 P. 234 (1905); repair of city waterworks, Hickey v. City of Nampa, 22 Idaho 41 , 124 P. 280 (1912); construction of a jail in a newly created county, Jones v. Power Co., 27 Idaho 656 , 150 P. 35 (1915); maintenance of streets, Thomas v. Glindeman, 33 Idaho 394 , 195 P. 92 (1921); cost of employing school teachers, Corum v. Common School Dist., 55 Idaho 725 , 47 P.2d 889 (1935).

2010Expenditures held to be within the ordinary and necessary exception include: salaries of city officers and employees, Butler v. Lewiston, 11 Idaho 393 , 83 P. 234 (1905); repair of city waterworks, Hickey v. City of Nampa, 22 Idaho 41 , 124 P. 280 (1912); construction of a jail in a newly created county, Jones v. Power Co., 27 Idaho 656 , 150 P. 35 (1915); maintenance of streets, Thomas v. Glindeman, 33 Idaho 394 , 195 P. 92 (1921); cost of employing school teachers, Corum v. Common School Dist., 55 Idaho 725 , 47 P.2d 889 (1935).

2010Expenditures held to be within the ordinary and necessary exception include: salaries of city officers and employees, Butler v. Lewiston, 11 Idaho 393 , 83 P. 234 (1905); repair of city waterworks, Hickey v. City of Nampa, 22 Idaho 41 , 124 P. 280 (1912); construction of a jail in a newly created county, Jones v. Power Co., 27 Idaho 656 , 150 P. 35 (1915); maintenance of streets, Thomas v. Glindeman, 33 Idaho 394 , 195 P. 92 (1921); cost of employing school teachers, Corum v. Common School Dist., 55 Idaho 725 , 47 P.2d 889 (1935).

2010Expenditures held to be within the ordinary and necessary exception include: salaries of city officers and employees, Butler v. Lewiston, 11 Idaho 393 , 83 P. 234 (1905); repair of city waterworks, Hickey v. City of Nampa, 22 Idaho 41 , 124 P. 280 (1912); construction of a jail in a newly created county, Jones v. Power Co., 27 Idaho 656 , 150 P. 35 (1915); maintenance of streets, Thomas v. Glindeman, 33 Idaho 394 , 195 P. 92 (1921); cost of employing school teachers, Corum v. Common School Dist., 55 Idaho 725 , 47 P.2d 889 (1935).

2010Expenditures held to be within the ordinary and necessary exception include: salaries of city officers and employees, Butler v. Lewiston, 11 Idaho 393 , 83 P. 234 (1905); repair of city waterworks, Hickey v. City of Nampa, 22 Idaho 41 , 124 P. 280 (1912); construction of a jail in a newly created county, Jones v. Power Co., 27 Idaho 656 , 150 P. 35 (1915); maintenance of streets, Thomas v. Glindeman, 33 Idaho 394 , 195 P. 92 (1921); cost of employing school teachers, Corum v. Common School Dist., 55 Idaho 725 , 47 P.2d 889 (1935).

2010Expenditures held to be within the ordinary and necessary exception include: salaries of city officers and employees, Butler v. Lewiston, 11 Idaho 393 , 83 P. 234 (1905); repair of city waterworks, Hickey v. City of Nampa, 22 Idaho 41 , 124 P. 280 (1912); construction of a jail in a newly created county, Jones v. Power Co., 27 Idaho 656 , 150 P. 35 (1915); maintenance of streets, Thomas v. Glindeman, 33 Idaho 394 , 195 P. 92 (1921); cost of employing school teachers, Corum v. Common School Dist., 55 Idaho 725 , 47 P.2d 889 (1935).

2010Expenditures held to be within the ordinary and necessary exception include: salaries of city officers and employees, Butler v. Lewiston, 11 Idaho 393 , 83 P. 234 (1905); repair of city waterworks, Hickey v. City of Nampa, 22 Idaho 41 , 124 P. 280 (1912); construction of a jail in a newly created county, Jones v. Power Co., 27 Idaho 656 , 150 P. 35 (1915); maintenance of streets, Thomas v. Glindeman, 33 Idaho 394 , 195 P. 92 (1921); cost of employing school teachers, Corum v. Common School Dist., 55 Idaho 725 , 47 P.2d 889 (1935).

2010Expenditures held to be within the ordinary and necessary exception include: salaries of city officers and employees, Butler v. Lewiston, 11 Idaho 393 , 83 P. 234 (1905); repair of city waterworks, Hickey v. City of Nampa, 22 Idaho 41 , 124 P. 280 (1912); construction of a jail in a newly created county, Jones v. Power Co., 27 Idaho 656 , 150 P. 35 (1915); maintenance of streets, Thomas v. Glindeman, 33 Idaho 394 , 195 P. 92 (1921); cost of employing school teachers, Corum v. Common School Dist., 55 Idaho 725 , 47 P.2d 889 (1935).

2010Expenditures held to be within the ordinary and necessary exception include: salaries of city officers and employees, Butler v. Lewiston, 11 Idaho 393 , 83 P. 234 (1905); repair of city waterworks, Hickey v. City of Nampa, 22 Idaho 41 , 124 P. 280 (1912); construction of a jail in a newly created county, Jones v. Power Co., 27 Idaho 656 , 150 P. 35 (1915); maintenance of streets, Thomas v. Glindeman, 33 Idaho 394 , 195 P. 92 (1921); cost of employing school teachers, Corum v. Common School Dist., 55 Idaho 725 , 47 P.2d 889 (1935).

2010Expenditures held to be within the ordinary and necessary exception include: salaries of city officers and employees, Butler v. Lewiston, 11 Idaho 393 , 83 P. 234 (1905); repair of city waterworks, Hickey v. City of Nampa, 22 Idaho 41 , 124 P. 280 (1912); construction of a jail in a newly created county, Jones v. Power Co., 27 Idaho 656 , 150 P. 35 (1915); maintenance of streets, Thomas v. Glindeman, 33 Idaho 394 , 195 P. 92 (1921); cost of employing school teachers, Corum v. Common School Dist., 55 Idaho 725 , 47 P.2d 889 (1935).

2020A defendant may present, and the court may evaluate, “side-by-side comparisons of [minority] prospective jurors who were struck and white prospective jurors who were not struck in the case[.]” Flowers, 139 S. Ct. at 2243 .

2016“The record must show the trial court considered the necessary factors.” Id. “[T]he consideration of these factors must appear in the record in order to facilitate appellate review.” Jarolimek, 139 Idaho at 139 , 75 P.3d at 193 (quoting Ashby v. Western Council Lumber Production, 117 Idaho 684, 686 , 791 P.2d 434, 436 (1990)).

2016“The record must show the trial court considered the necessary factors.” Id. “[T]he consideration of these factors must appear in the record in order to facilitate appellate review.” Jarolimek, 139 Idaho at 139 , 75 P.3d at 193 (quoting Ashby v. Western Council Lumber Production, 117 Idaho 684, 686 , 791 P.2d 434, 436 (1990)).

1993Tumo, 100 Idaho at 79-80 , 593 P.2d at 716-17 ; H & V, 113 Idaho at 650 , 747 P.2d at 59 .

1993Tumo, 100 Idaho at 79-80 , 593 P.2d at 716-17 ; H & V, 113 Idaho at 650 , 747 P.2d at 59 .

1993Batson indicates the trial court’s findings concerning the explanation should be treated the same as findings of intentional discrimination in Title VII sex discrimination cases and that “[sjince the trial judge’s findings in the context of consideration here will largely turn on evaluation of credibility, a reviewing court ordinarily should give those findings great deference.” Id. at 1724 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. at 1724 n. 21, 90 L.Ed.2d at 89 n. 21.

1993Batson indicates the trial court’s findings concerning the explanation should be treated the same as findings of intentional discrimination in Title VII sex discrimination cases and that “[sjince the trial judge’s findings in the context of consideration here will largely turn on evaluation of credibility, a reviewing court ordinarily should give those findings great deference.” Id. at 1724 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. at 1724 n. 21, 90 L.Ed.2d at 89 n. 21.

1993Tumo, 100 Idaho at 79-80 , 593 P.2d at 716-17 ; H & V, 113 Idaho at 650 , 747 P.2d at 59 .

1993Tumo, 100 Idaho at 79-80 , 593 P.2d at 716-17 ; H & V, 113 Idaho at 650 , 747 P.2d at 59 .

1992Boston Insurance Co. v. Beckett, 91 Idaho 220 , 419 P.2d 475 (1966).

1992Boston Insurance Co. v. Beckett, 91 Idaho 220 , 419 P.2d 475 (1966).

1986In contrast, the First National Bank in Albuquerque plaintiffs alleged that the Pesticides Regulation Division of the Department of Agriculture had been negligent in determining pursuant to statute and regulations the necessary warnings to accompany a certain type of fungicide. 552 F.2d at 371-72 .

1986In contrast, the First National Bank in Albuquerque plaintiffs alleged that the Pesticides Regulation Division of the Department of Agriculture had been negligent in determining pursuant to statute and regulations the necessary warnings to accompany a certain type of fungicide. 552 F.2d at 371-72 .

1911It is difficult to give a more accurate definition of insolvency.” (Minton v. Stahlman, 96 Tenn. 98 , 34 S. W. 222 ; Baxter v. Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1 , 72 N. W. 797 .) It may be conceded that there is some little conflict of authorities on this question, but we think the great weight of authority follows the rule given by the trial court.

1911It is difficult to give a more accurate definition of insolvency.” (Minton v. Stahlman, 96 Tenn. 98 , 34 S. W. 222 ; Baxter v. Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1 , 72 N. W. 797 .) It may be conceded that there is some little conflict of authorities on this question, but we think the great weight of authority follows the rule given by the trial court.

1911It is difficult to give a more accurate definition of insolvency.” (Minton v. Stahlman, 96 Tenn. 98 , 34 S. W. 222 ; Baxter v. Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1 , 72 N. W. 797 .) It may be conceded that there is some little conflict of authorities on this question, but we think the great weight of authority follows the rule given by the trial court.

1911It is difficult to give a more accurate definition of insolvency.” (Minton v. Stahlman, 96 Tenn. 98 , 34 S. W. 222 ; Baxter v. Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1 , 72 N. W. 797 .) It may be conceded that there is some little conflict of authorities on this question, but we think the great weight of authority follows the rule given by the trial court.

1906In McCarty v. City of Atlanta, 121 Ga. 365 , 49 S. E. 287 , the court said: “If once excuses were admitted for keeping open such places upon prohibited days or after prohibited hours, the law would be practically nullified.

1906In McCarty v. City of Atlanta, 121 Ga. 365 , 49 S. E. 287 , the court said: “If once excuses were admitted for keeping open such places upon prohibited days or after prohibited hours, the law would be practically nullified.

1906However, criminal statutes are not always literally construed, and possibly an emergency might arise of great necessity to admit some one other than those mentioned in the section; and while such admission might infringe upon the letter of the statute, it would not come within its spirit, and the court under the particular circumstances might make the necessary exception. ’ ’ (See, also, Davis v. Fasig, 128 Ind. 271 , 27 N. E. 726 .) It would seem to me that the effect of the ordinance would be nullified if such places were permitted to be kept open and visited by everybody who desired to do s

1906However, criminal statutes are not always literally construed, and possibly an emergency might arise of great necessity to admit some one other than those mentioned in the section; and while such admission might infringe upon the letter of the statute, it would not come within its spirit, and the court under the particular circumstances might make the necessary exception. ’ ’ (See, also, Davis v. Fasig, 128 Ind. 271 , 27 N. E. 726 .) It would seem to me that the effect of the ordinance would be nullified if such places were permitted to be kept open and visited by everybody who desired to do s