Shokal v. Dunn
Idaho Supreme Court
707 P.2d 441 (1985)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Trout Co. (defendant) applied for a permit to use water from Billingsley Creek for a fish farm and power generation that would take about 80 percent of the flow out of a 700-foot stretch. Edward Shokal and other locals (the protestants) (plaintiffs) filed numerous objections, and the state of Idaho and its Department of Fish and Game intervened. After the Idaho Department of Water Resources (Water Resources) held a hearing, director Kenneth Dunn (defendant) granted the application. When the protestants petitioned for review, the district court reversed and remanded for rehearing regarding the local public interest. Water Resources conditionally granted the permit based on Trout Co. meeting water-quality, effluent-control, and monitoring requirements but directed Trout Co. to submit new design and construction plans. The protestants objected to the procedure and Trout Co.’s new plans and petitioned for another rehearing. Water Resources nonetheless granted the permit, and the protestants filed new protests. A second district court judge again reversed and remanded with specific guidelines for assessing the local public interest. Trout Co. and the protestants cross-appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bistline, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.