 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Am. Lung Ass'n v. State, Docket No. 31842, 2006 Opinion No. 13,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Determination that there were no economically viable alternatives to crop burning was not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion because petitioners had not pointed to anything in the record showing that the financial rate of return for the non-thermal disposal of crop residue would be the same as that for crop burning.
|
|||||
| Henderson v. Mc Cain Foods, Inc., Docket No. 31232, 2006 Opinion No. 11,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Industrial Commission's apportionment of disability under Idaho Code Ann. § 72-406(1) was improper where the Commission's apportionment was incorrectly done by mechanically applying the Carey formula. The Commission needed to provide an analysis as to why disability should be apportioned in the same ratio as impairment.
|
|||||
| Hogg v. Wolske, Docket No. 30818, 2006 Opinion No. 12,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Warranty deed constituted an outright conveyance, under Idaho Code § 55-604, rather than a mortgage where defendants could reacquire the property by paying certain sums to plaintiffs, but they were not obligated to, and after a failed attempt to tender the first payment to reacquire the property, defendants did nothing to reacquire the property.
|
|||||
| Carter v. Carter (In re Trust of Carter), Docket No. 31329, 2006 Opinion No. 17,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judge did not err in refusing to award costs and fees to a widow with respect to claims voluntarily dismissed by trustor's son pursuant to Idaho R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1)(B); each side prevailed in part and did not prevail in part in that widow sought to recover more than twice what was awarded and the son's position was that she should recover nothing.
|
|||||
| Contreras v. Rubley, Docket No. 31123, 2006 Opinion No. 14,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Damage to respondent's car did not constitute a "significant new item of damage" such that he had to forfeit his right to recover attorney fees under Idaho Code § 12-120(4) because, inter alia, appellant's insurer's lack of awareness of damage to respondent's car had not played any part in insurer's refusal to settle prior to commencement of suit.
|
|||||
| Robert Comstock, LLC v. KeyBank Nat'l Assoc., Docket No. 31265/31478, 2006 Opinion No. 16,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Borrower's claim of economic duress was not supported by the record because the record showed that the bank continuously tried to work with the borrower, and as an alternative to the fifth agreement, the bank could have stopped working with the borrower before it entered into the second, third, or even fourth agreements.
|
|||||
| State v. Henage, Docket No. 31205, 2006 Opinion No. 15,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of defendant's motion to suppress was improper under the Fourth Amendment because a sergeant did not have objectively reasonable grounds for believing that defendant was armed and dangerous. Weapons frisks were not justified by an officer's subjective feeling.
|
|||||
| City of McCall v. Seubert, Docket No. 31191, 2006 Opinion No. 18,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Eminent domain awards in favor of the owners and intervenors were affirmed because the intervenors clearly satisfied the requirements of Idaho Code Ann. § 7-711 and were entitled to make a claim for business damages, and there was support for the owners' appraisal expert's valuation methodologies and opinion.
|
|||||
| Greenough v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., Docket No. 31234, 2006 Opinion No. 20,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, February 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Supreme Court of Idaho vacated trial court's opinion that prejudgment interest accrued from date of automobile accident because supreme court overruled its prior opinion in Brinkman which had held that word "due," in Idaho Code § 28-22-104(1), meant "accrued"; prejudgment interest accrued when insured complied with applicable contract provisions.
|
|||||
| State v. Roe (In re Doe), Docket No. 31563, 2006 Opinion No. 19,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, February 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Magistrate court's order terminating mother's parental rights under Idaho Code § 16-2005(e) was clearly erroneous; inter alia, magistrate erred in focusing on mother's conviction and past criminal behavior while dismissing relevant and competent evidence such as the social worker's testimony that reunification was possible and was occurring.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
