almost universal rule in Idaho

1999Unlike initiatives, for which there is a statutory procedure for post-election challenge, the standard for reviewing a ballot measure for a constitutional amendment after an election was set forth by this Court in Penrod v. Crowley, 82 Idaho 511 , 356 P.2d 73 (1960): [Tjhis court has recognized the almost universal rule that once an amendment is duly proposed and is actually published and submitted to a vote of the people and by them adopted without any question having been raised prior to the election as to the method by which the amendment gets before them, the effect of a favorable vote by

1999Unlike initiatives, for which there is a statutory procedure for post-election challenge, the standard for reviewing a ballot measure for a constitutional amendment after an election was set forth by this Court in Penrod v. Crowley, 82 Idaho 511 , 356 P.2d 73 (1960): [Tjhis court has recognized the almost universal rule that once an amendment is duly proposed and is actually published and submitted to a vote of the people and by them adopted without any question having been raised prior to the election as to the method by which the amendment gets before them, the effect of a favorable vote by

1993The court held that the bishop was not the pastor of a specific church, stating that “the almost universal rule is that each church congregation has but one pastor ... if the legislature intended to exempt from taxation more than one parsonage for each congregation, it would doubtless have said so in express terms.” Griswold, 156 P. at 762 .

1993The court held that the bishop was not the pastor of a specific church, stating that “the almost universal rule is that each church congregation has but one pastor ... if the legislature intended to exempt from taxation more than one parsonage for each congregation, it would doubtless have said so in express terms.” 156 P. at 762 .

1968In this regard see also 8 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, § 25.-131f, pp. 409-413 (1965) ; 2 Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice, § 222, pp. 110-112 (2nd ed. 1953) ; Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Meridian Hills v. Schulte, 241 Ind. 339 , 172 N.E.2d 39 (1961) ; State ex rel.

1968In this regard see also 8 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, § 25.-131f, pp. 409-413 (1965) ; 2 Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice, § 222, pp. 110-112 (2nd ed. 1953) ; Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Meridian Hills v. Schulte, 241 Ind. 339 , 172 N.E.2d 39 (1961) ; State ex rel.

1974The almost universal rule regarding general damages in actions for defamation per se is concisely stated in the Washington case of Michielli v. U. S. Mortgage Co., 58 Wash.2d 221 , 361 P.2d 758, 762 (1961): “Where a defamation is actionable per se, and neither truth nor privilege is established as a defense, the defamed person is entitled to substantial damages without proving actual damages.” Accord, Pacific Packing Co. v. Bradstreet Co., 25 Idaho 696, 702 , 139 P. 1007 (1914); Pagosa Hot Spring, Inc. v. Arnold, 493 P.2d 383, 386 (Colo.Ct.App.1972); Eslinger v. Henderson, 80 N.M. 479 , 457 P.

1974The almost universal rule regarding general damages in actions for defamation per se is concisely stated in the Washington case of Michielli v. U. S. Mortgage Co., 58 Wash.2d 221 , 361 P.2d 758, 762 (1961): “Where a defamation is actionable per se, and neither truth nor privilege is established as a defense, the defamed person is entitled to substantial damages without proving actual damages.” Accord, Pacific Packing Co. v. Bradstreet Co., 25 Idaho 696, 702 , 139 P. 1007 (1914); Pagosa Hot Spring, Inc. v. Arnold, 493 P.2d 383, 386 (Colo.Ct.App.1972); Eslinger v. Henderson, 80 N.M. 479 , 457 P.

1974The almost universal rule regarding general damages in actions for defamation per se is concisely stated in the Washington case of Michielli v. U. S. Mortgage Co., 58 Wash.2d 221 , 361 P.2d 758, 762 (1961): “Where a defamation is actionable per se, and neither truth nor privilege is established as a defense, the defamed person is entitled to substantial damages without proving actual damages.” Accord, Pacific Packing Co. v. Bradstreet Co., 25 Idaho 696, 702 , 139 P. 1007 (1914); Pagosa Hot Spring, Inc. v. Arnold, 493 P.2d 383, 386 (Colo.Ct.App.1972); Eslinger v. Henderson, 80 N.M. 479 , 457 P.

1970This court, however, rejected the argument and upheld the lease stating that "It is the almost universal rule that the leasing of school buildings and parks for private purposes which are not inconsistent with the conduct of the school, is not an unconstitutional use of such property." 61 Idaho at 114 , 98 P.2d at 961 .

1970This court, however, rejected the argument and upheld the lease stating that "It is the almost universal rule that the leasing of school buildings and parks for private purposes which are not inconsistent with the conduct of the school, is not an unconstitutional use of such property." 61 Idaho at 114 , 98 P.2d at 961 .

1960XVII is mandatory and should be followed (Crawford v. Gilchrist, 64 Fla. 41 , 59 So. 963 , Ann.Cas. 1914B, 916; Gray v. Childs, 115 Fla. 816 , 156 So. 274 ), this Court has recognized the almost universal rule that once an amendment is duly proposed and is actually published and submitted to a vote of the people and by them adopted without any question having been raised prior to the election as to the method by which the amendment gets before them, the effect of a favorable vote by the people is to cure defects in the form of the submission.” 18 So. 2d at page 895 .

1960XVII is mandatory and should be followed (Crawford v. Gilchrist, 64 Fla. 41 , 59 So. 963 , Ann.Cas. 1914B, 916; Gray v. Childs, 115 Fla. 816 , 156 So. 274 ), this Court has recognized the almost universal rule that once an amendment is duly proposed and is actually published and submitted to a vote of the people and by them adopted without any question having been raised prior to the election as to the method by which the amendment gets before them, the effect of a favorable vote by the people is to cure defects in the form of the submission.” 18 So. 2d at page 895 .

1960XVII is mandatory and should be followed (Crawford v. Gilchrist, 64 Fla. 41 , 59 So. 963 , Ann.Cas. 1914B, 916; Gray v. Childs, 115 Fla. 816 , 156 So. 274 ), this Court has recognized the almost universal rule that once an amendment is duly proposed and is actually published and submitted to a vote of the people and by them adopted without any question having been raised prior to the election as to the method by which the amendment gets before them, the effect of a favorable vote by the people is to cure defects in the form of the submission.” 18 So. 2d at page 895 .

1960The same rule was followed by the Florida court in Pearson v. Taylor, 159 Fla. 775 , 32 So.2d 826 .

1960The same rule was followed by the Florida court in Pearson v. Taylor, 159 Fla. 775 , 32 So.2d 826 .

1960XVII is mandatory and should be followed (Crawford v. Gilchrist, 64 Fla. 41 , 59 So. 963 , Ann.Cas. 1914B, 916; Gray v. Childs, 115 Fla. 816 , 156 So. 274 ), this Court has recognized the almost universal rule that once an amendment is duly proposed and is actually published and submitted to a vote of the people and by them adopted without any question having been raised prior to the election as to the method by which the amendment gets before them, the effect of a favorable vote by the people is to cure defects in the form of the submission.” 18 So. 2d at page 895 .

1939No. 28, 136 Kan. 313 , 15 Pac. (2d) 438 .) It is the almost universal rule that the leasing of school buildings and parks for private purposes which are not inconsistent with the conduct of the school, is not an unconstitutional use of such property.

1939No. 28, 136 Kan. 313 , 15 Pac. (2d) 438 .) It is the almost universal rule that the leasing of school buildings and parks for private purposes which are not inconsistent with the conduct of the school, is not an unconstitutional use of such property.

1915Ency. of Law, p. 755, which reads: “If the owner of land, or a party having interest therein, in good faith applies to the proper officer for the purpose of paying the tax thereon, and payment is prevented by the mistake or fault of such officer, .... the attempt to pay is considered, in most jurisdictions as the legal equivalent of payment in so far as -to discharge the lien and bar a sale for nonpayment.” Thus in Breisch v. Coxe, 81 Pa. St. 336, 346, the court in dealing with an attempt to pay taxes, observed: “It is an almost universal rule, which substitutes a tender for performance, when

1915Ency. of Law, p. 755, which reads: “If the owner of land, or a party having interest therein, in good faith applies to the proper officer for the purpose of paying the tax thereon, and payment is prevented by the mistake or fault of such officer, .... the attempt to pay is considered, in most jurisdictions as the legal equivalent of payment in so far as -to discharge the lien and bar a sale for nonpayment.” Thus in Breisch v. Coxe, 81 Pa. St. 336, 346, the court in dealing with an attempt to pay taxes, observed: “It is an almost universal rule, which substitutes a tender for performance, when