limits factors in Idaho

1989In State v. Small, 107 Idaho 504 , 690 P.2d 1336, 1338 (1984), this Court stated, “[i]t is improper for a legislature to limit the sentencing body’s consideration of mitigating factors to those enumerated in a statute.” See also, State v. Osborn, 102 Idaho 405 , 631 P.2d 187 (1981).

1989In State v. Small, 107 Idaho 504 , 690 P.2d 1336, 1338 (1984), this Court stated, “[i]t is improper for a legislature to limit the sentencing body’s consideration of mitigating factors to those enumerated in a statute.” See also, State v. Osborn, 102 Idaho 405 , 631 P.2d 187 (1981).

1985The court went on to note the limits of the rule, as of course there are countervailing considerations: “If an attorney cannot be reached within a reasonable period of time, the person may need to make an independent decision without the aid of counsel, so as to not unnecessarily delay the administration of the test.” Id.

1985The court went on to note the limits of the rule, as of course there are countervailing considerations: "If an attorney cannot be reached within a reasonable period of time, the person may need to make an independent decision without the aid of counsel, so as to not unnecessarily delay the administration of the test." Id. *341 The decision in Heles was appealed to the Eighth Circuit, but was vacated on the grounds of mootness, as Mr. Heles had died in the interim.

1985Heles v. State of South Dakota, 682 F.2d 201 (8th Cir.1982).

1965But something must be found in place, as rock, clay, or earth, so colored, stained, changed, and decomposed by the mineral elements as to mark and distinguish it from the inclosing country.” 2 Idaho at 682 , 33 P. at 50 .

1965But something must be found in place, as rock, clay, or earth, so colored, stained, changed, and decomposed by the mineral elements as to mark and distinguish it from the inclosing country.” 2 Idaho at 682 , 33 P. at 50 .

1926“It is entirely true that the statute requiring as a condition to a valid location the discovery of mineral within the limits of the claim, should, as between conflicting claimants to mineral lands, receive a broad and liberal construction.....” (Nevada Sierra Oil Co. v. Home Oil Co., 98 Fed. 673 .) It is worthy of note *651 that Bomney had made the same discoveries, for he helped post the location notices on June 6th and thereafter tore down such notices and placed other notices at the same places.

1906But as was said in Bonner v. Meikle, 82 Fed. 697 : ‘ It was never intended that the court should weigh scales to determine the. value of mineral found as between a prior and subsequent locator of a mining claim, on the same lode.’ ‘ ‘ The location of the Kirby was made in 1886.