Murphy v. Grand County

3 Citing cases

  1. Reep v. Board of County Commissioners

    191 Mont. 162 (Mont. 1981)   Cited 4 times
    In Reep, the Legislature, in the context of county government audits, required the Department of Community Affairs to conduct "comprehensive audits," instead of leaving that task to the county auditor.

    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:

  2. Wyoming Department of Revenue v. Wilson

    401 P.2d 960 (Wyo. 1965)   Cited 9 times

    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.

  3. State v. Betensen

    14 Utah 2 (Utah 1963)   Cited 10 times

    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.