 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Blimka v. My Web Wholesaler, LLC., Docket No. 32185, 2007 Opinion No. 17,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Neither the Idaho long-arm statute, Idaho Code § 5-514(b), nor Due Process Clause precluded the district court from exercising personal jurisdiction over the Maine company and manager, as the fraud was directed at an Idaho resident and the injury occurred in Idaho. Under Idaho Code § 12-120(3), the customer was entitled to a fee award on appeal.
|
|||||
| Wilson v. J. R. Simplot Co., Docket No. 31774, 2007 Opinion No. 18,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action arising from a vehicular accident, trial court properly ordered a new trial, where difference between what jury awarded and what trial court would have awarded was large enough that trial court could reasonably determine that damages were so excessive that they appeared to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice.
|
|||||
| Griffith v. Clear Lakes Trout Co., Docket No. 32385, 2007 Opinion No. 19,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While damages might have been difficult to determine it was clear trout hatchery's breach deprived trout grower of opportunity to complete performance of their contact for remaining years and losses for those years occurred, thus trial court erred in not awarding damages for years 6 and 7 pursuant to Idaho Code § 28-2-306(1) and issue was remanded.
|
|||||
| Parsons v. Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. Co., Docket No. 32603, 2007 Opinion No. 20,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Awarding fees to insured under Idaho Code Ann. § 41-1839(1) consistent with a contingent fee agreement was proper because all factors of Idaho R. Civ. P. 54(e)(3) were considered and Idaho R. Civ. P. 11(a)(1) required an attorney to make reasonable inquiry before filing action so that time reasonably spent did not begin with drafting of complaint.
|
|||||
| Fuhriman v. State, Docket No. 31974, 32224, 32225, 2007 Opinion No. 22,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, February 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The State was the statutory employer of the contractor's employees, Idaho Code § 72-102(13); therefore, the State as an employer was immune from third party liability. There was no requirement that a category one statutory employer had to be a contractor or subcontractor, and control over the work site or employees was not a factor in the analysis.
|
|||||
| Spur Prods. Corp. v. Stoel Rives LLP, Docket No. 33054, 2007 Opinion No. 21,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, February 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of partnership on corporations' third amended complaint violated law of the case as disclosure to company was not essential element to the corporations' claim. District court did not err in denying corporations' motion to reconsider, Idaho R. Civ. P. 11(a)(2), as it considered briefs and affidavits in support for motion.
|
|||||
| Hyde v. Fisher, Docket No. 30648, 2007 Opinion No. 3,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's habeas corpus petition, brought under Religious Exercises in Land Use and by Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000cc et seq. and Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act, Idaho Code § 73-401 et seq., was improperly dismissed because bond requirement of Idaho Code Ann. § 6-610 no longer applied to indigent inmates.
|
|||||
| State v. Perry, Docket No. 32472, 2007 Opinion No. 2,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of grand theft. Trial court erred in allowing admission of terminally ill witness's preliminary hearing testimony, pursuant to Idaho Code Ann. § 9-336 and Idaho R. Evid. 804(b)(1), because evidence did not support a finding that witness was unavailable, but the error was harmless in light of other evidence presented.
|
|||||
| Joyce Livestock Co. v. United States (In re SRBA Case No. 39576), Docket Nos. 32278, 32279, & 32846, 2007 Opinion No. 23,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In livestock company's dispute with the United States over instream stockwatering rights on public land, trial court did not err in ruling that livestock company had established water rights because water rights on public land were beneficial useful adjuncts to cattle ranches that were livestock company's predecessors.
|
|||||
| LU Ranching Co. v. U.S.A. (In re SRBA Case No. 39576), Docket No. 31994, 2007 Opinion No. 24,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a water right action, a district court erred when it analyzed which water rights were acquired and transferred as appurtenances to which patented properties; thus, the district court's determination of the priorities of a property owner's water rights was vacated an remanded for determination under a companion case.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
