Court Opinion

ID: 9629677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:47:08.974873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:22.646205
License: Public Domain

McFADDEN, Justice,
specially concurring.
I concur in the opinion authored by Justice Bistline. However, by reason of statements made in the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Shepard, I feel compelled to explain my position in regard to School Dist. No. 351 v. Oneida Ed. Ass’n, 98 Idaho 486, 567 P.2d 830 (1977), in which opinion I concurred with the majority.
In Oneida this court was dealing solely with the problems of a group of school *644teachers and had before it the issue of injunctive relief granted by the trial court. Basically, that case involved consideration and interpretation of I.C. § 33-1271 et seq., enacted in 1971, the Idaho Professional Negotiations Act. In that opinion this court pointed out that
The trial court ruled as a matter of law that the injunction should issue and we must assume, in the absence of any evidentiary record, that he concluded that a strike by teachers is illegal in Idaho. Assuming without deciding that he was correct in this conclusion, nevertheless, mere illegality of an act does not require the automatic issuance of an injunction.
By this statement it is evident that in Oneida this court was limiting the scope of its ruling, and discussion of issues beyond the limited holding must be considered dicta.
In this instant case the issue before the court dealt with firemen and the results of their strike, unlike the Oneida case where neither firemen, the statute peculiar to them (I.C. § 44-1811), nor a strike was involved.