 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gillespie v. Mt. Park Estates, L.L.C., Docket No. 31805, Amended Opinion No. 25,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's finding of fraud by the home builder was not supported by findings of fact and had to be reversed where it did not find that the builder's statement was false, and the homeowners admitted that they did not try to prove that it was. Neither owners nor builder were not entitled to attorney fees under Idaho Code § 12-120(1) and (3).
|
|||||
| McNeal v. Idaho PUC, Docket No. 31844, 2006 Opinion No. 34,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Idaho Public Utilities Commission had authority under federal and state law to interpret and enforce interconnection agreements between company and corporation and did so. There was no impediment to company filing for arbitration. Commission could not determine unconscionability of contract under Idaho Code § 28-2-302 as it was not a court.
|
|||||
| State v. Hanson, Docket No. 31257, 2006 Opinion No. 18,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred by denying a motion to suppress because an officer did not have reasonable, suspicion, Fourth Amendment, that defendant was dangerous and had access to a weapon inside the automobile where the officer had no information that defendant was carrying a weapon and did not see anything inside the vehicle that suggested a hidden weapon.
|
|||||
| State v. Hart, Docket No. 31126, 2006 Opinion No. 33,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Findings of fact concerning custody of child were supported by substantial competent evidence. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 32-717, trial court did not abuse its discretion ordering equal joint physical custody between parents and under Idaho Code § 32-717B, it was not error to find that child would live primarily with father during her school year.
|
|||||
| Murphy v. State, Docket No. 31154, 2006 Opinion No. 19,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Applicant sought relief following murder conviction. When State's pathologist changed opinion, on day of trial, as to cause of victim's death, trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel failed to seek continuance; moreover, applicant's request for funds to hire expert, pursuant to Idaho Code § 19-4904, should have been granted.
|
|||||
| State v. Harvey, Docket No. 31732, 2006 Opinion No. 20,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly denied defendant's Idaho Crim. R. 35 motion to correct an illegal sentence because trial court did not err in tolling his probationary period. Further, because probation revocation proceeding was commenced during the period of defendant's probation, trial court acted within its authority set forth in Idaho Code Ann. § 20-222.
|
|||||
| State v. Allen, Docket No. 31096/31097/31098, 2006 Opinion No. 21,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding against defendant in his appeal was appropriate because no finder of fact had determined the meaning of an ambiguous material term in the plea agreement or resolved related factual issues. Thus, on appeal the court was unable to determine whether the agreement was actually breached.
|
|||||
| Alderson v. Bonner, Docket No. 31122, 2006 Opinion No. 23,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, April 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The order denying the prowler's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the sisters' claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress was improper where the sisters' evidence did not demonstrate a degree of mental suffering meeting the standard for a cause of action for the tort. Mere emotional discomfort was described.
|
|||||
| State v. Zueger, Docket No. 31761, 2006 Opinion No. 22,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, April 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order granting defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained during a search of her home was upheld where the search warrant, which was signed by the prosecutor, was invalid because neither a magistrate nor a peace officer signed it, as required by Idaho Code Ann. § 19-4406.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
