view error in Idaho

2000Id. at 574, 873 P.2d at 828 , Bistline, J., concurring and dissenting and Johnson, J., concurring and dissenting.

1966While the view that a presumption is to be afforded some evidentiary weight in the scales of justice, and is to be considered as more than a procedural device of shifting the “burden of persuasion”, has been criticized by authors, 3 yet there is very respectable authority to sustain this view, as set out in the annotations cited in the footnote below. 4 Perhaps one of the best statements of the principles involved is to be found in Burrier v. Mutual Life Insurance Co., of New York, 63 Wash.2d 266 , 387 P.2d 58 ; 65, 66, (1963): “ * * * Although, perhaps, it can be correctly said that, in a maj

1966While the view that a presumption is to be afforded some evidentiary weight in the scales of justice, and is to be considered as more than a procedural device of shifting the “burden of persuasion”, has been criticized by authors, 3 yet there is very respectable authority to sustain this view, as set out in the annotations cited in the footnote below. 4 Perhaps one of the best statements of the principles involved is to be found in Burrier v. Mutual Life Insurance Co., of New York, 63 Wash.2d 266 , 387 P.2d 58 ; 65, 66, (1963): “ * * * Although, perhaps, it can be correctly said that, in a maj

1955In Andrino v. Yates, 12 Idaho 618, 622 , 87 P. 787, 789 , this court stated: “This is not the case of an adult appealing to the aid of habeas corpus to obtain his freedom from illegal restraint, but the writ in this case was granted to inquire whether the plaintiff is entitled to the custody of said minor child.- The proceeding is not for the purpose of setting the child free, but to determine whether the petitioner is entitled to its custody, and the correct view or rule is.that the jurisdiction of the question of the custody of a child under a writ of habeas corpus is of an equitable nature,

1955In Andrino v. Yates, 12 Idaho 618, 622 , 87 P. 787, 789 , this court stated: “This is not the case of an adult appealing to the aid of habeas corpus to obtain his freedom from illegal restraint, but the writ in this case was granted to inquire whether the plaintiff is entitled to the custody of said minor child.- The proceeding is not for the purpose of setting the child free, but to determine whether the petitioner is entitled to its custody, and the correct view or rule is.that the jurisdiction of the question of the custody of a child under a writ of habeas corpus is of an equitable nature,

1931S., sec. 8964, supra, held the presence of the defendant at a view could be waived and said, “While we think it advisable, in all such cases, to permit the defendant to be present at such view, if he so desires, we think, where neither the defendant nor his counsel expressed such desire, and where the view was had on motion of defendant, and the record does not disclose anything improper, or that can be construed as prejudicial to defendant, took place at or during the view no such error has been committed as would justify reversal.” In the subsequent case of State v. McGinnis, 12 Ida. 336, 85

1931S., sec. 8964, supra, held the presence of the defendant at a view could be waived and said, “While we think it advisable, in all such cases, to permit the defendant to be present at such view, if he so desires, we think, where neither the defendant nor his counsel expressed such desire, and where the view was had on motion of defendant, and the record does not disclose anything improper, or that can be construed as prejudicial to defendant, took place at or during the view no such error has been committed as would justify reversal.” In the subsequent case of State v. McGinnis, 12 Ida. 336, 85

1911(Williams v. Johnson, 112 Ind. 273 , 13 N. E. 872 .) We conclude that the decided weight of authority is in favor of the view that a waiver of the privilege as to one physician does not waive the privilege as to any other physician.

1911(Williams v. Johnson, 112 Ind. 273 , 13 N. E. 872 .) We conclude that the decided weight of authority is in favor of the view that a waiver of the privilege as to one physician does not waive the privilege as to any other physician.