 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Goodman v. Lothrop, Docket No. 31291, 2007 Opinion No. 1, Docket No. 31292,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, January 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Owner's mother did not have life estate in real property, and so her consent to any mediated agreement was unnecessary. There was no evidence that owner entered into mediation agreement under duress. District court properly applied elements of boundary by agreement and resulting exception to the statute of frauds, Idaho Code §§ 9-505(4), 55-601.
|
|||||
| United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Severson, Docket No. 31690, 2007 Opinion No. 2,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, January 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A husband was prohibited from receiving the proceeds of his wife's life insurance policy after he was convicted of her first degree murder because Idaho Code Ann. § 15-2-803(b), (n) stated that no benefit could have been acquired as a result of her death; therefore, the primary beneficiary of the policy should have received all of the proceeds.
|
|||||
| State v. Hooper, NO. 31025, Ref. No. 06R-181,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, January 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Huffman, Docket No. 33015, 2007 Opinion No. 3,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, January 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Actions by the parole board could not be considered when reviewing an Idaho Crim. R. 35 motion as that would have been a collateral attack on an executive decision. The district court properly denied defendant's Rule 35 motion as the mitigating factors he identified were not new information the district court could have properly considered.
|
|||||
| Leader v. Reiner, Docket No. 31843, 2007 Opinion No. 4,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a bail bond agent's suit seeking to have the administrative district judge (ADJ) rescind certain obligations that arose when bail bonds he posted were forfeited and left unpaid, the agent's complaint's on appeal regarding the Bail Bond Guidelines were not considered as they were not raised below.
|
|||||
| Swader v. State, Docket No. 32114, 2007 Opinion No. 5,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred by dismissing a postconviction motion and denying appointment of counsel, Idaho Code § 19-4904, because, in deciding whether the petition raised the possibility of a valid claim, the court should have considered whether facts alleged were such that a reasonable person would be willing to retain counsel to conduct further investigation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
