A case factually similar to the one at hand was decided in the State of Washington and has been given recent accord. State ex rel. Yeargin v. Maschke (1916), 90 Wn. 249, 155 P. 1064; accord, Leonard v. Civil Service Commission (1980), 25 Wn. App. 691, 611 P.2d 1290; State v. Pettitt (1980), 93 Wn.2d 288, 609 P.2d 1364; Murphy v. Grand County (1954), 1 Utah 2d 412, 268 P.2d 677. In Yeargin the court stated:
The field within which the discretion of an officer may be exercised unhampered by judicial review is limited, and courts may review the exercise of a discretionary power to see whether circumstances are disclosed which show a reasonable or unreasonable exercise of such discretion. Markowitz v. Moss, Sup.Ct., 29 N.Y.S.2d 709, 710; Murphy v. Grand County, 1 Utah 2d 412, 268 P.2d 677, 678; In re California Ave. Local Improvement Dist. No. 575, Everett, 30 Wn.2d 144, 190 P.2d 738, 740. See also 67 C.J.S. Officers ยง 105, p. 377.
Although if the latter were a valid enactment, it would undoubtedly supersede the former as being in conflict and later in time. See Compilation of Duties of County Attorney in dissenting opinion of Justice Wade in Murphy v. Grand County, 1 Utah 2d 412, 268 P.2d 677. Sec. 78-51-25, U.C.A. 1953; Sec. 6-0-24, U.C.A. 1943; Sec. 6-0-24, R.S.U. 1933; Chap. 78 S.L.U. 1927.