 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cox v. Hollow Leg Pub & Brewery, Docket No. 33173, 2007 Opinion No. 45,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, March 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where claimant failed to report to the Idaho Department of Commerce and Labor the earnings she received as a server, the Industrial Commission's finding that she willfully underreported her income was supported by substantial evidence. She was ineligible from receiving unemployment benefits for seventy weeks under Idaho Code Ann. § 72-1366.
|
|||||
| Fritts v. Liddle & Moeller Constr., Inc., Docket No. 32089, 2007 Opinion No. 51,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, March 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Homeowners' delay of two months in filing motion to amend was inappropriate under Idaho R. Civ. P. 59, and Idaho Supreme Court had no basis to determine whether district court correctly denied their motion for new trial. Parties adequately raised issue of attorney fees awardable under Idaho Code § 12-120 and contractor was awarded fees on appeal.
|
|||||
| Hairston v. State, Docket No. 28528/29653/29680, 2007 Opinion No. 52,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, March 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a capital case, an appeal from the denial of several motions for post-conviction relief was dismissed because the 42-day time limit was not met, and the issues raised did not fit under the narrow exception in Idaho Code Ann. § 19-2719(5); moreover, § 19-2719 neither violated equal protection and due process, nor was it unconstitutionally vague.
|
|||||
| Puckett v. Verska, Docket No. 32571, 2007 Opinion No. 48,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, March 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In medical malpractice action, district court did not err in granting the patient's motion for reconsideration after it had granted the surgeon summary judgment because it did not err in consideration the patient's expert's most recent affidavit, wherein he stated that he consulted with three additional doctors about the standard of care.
|
|||||
| Ramos v. Dixon, Docket No. 33095, 2007 Opinion No. 46,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, March 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In survivor's medical malpractice suit against physicians, trial court properly granted summary judgment because survivor's expert witness, who was from another state, failed to establish that he knew of the applicable standard of care in the community, as required by Idaho Code Ann. § 6-1012, and if so, how he gained that knowledge.
|
|||||
| Sirius LC v. Erickson, Docket No. 32582, 2007 Opinion No. 49,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, March 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Promissory note was not negotiable instrument governed by Idaho Code § 28-3-109 as it was not payable to bearer or to order. Company had enforceable right against client as promisee of the note so long as note was otherwise enforceable. Company owner gave consideration for note. District court erred granting summary judgment on certain grounds.
|
|||||
| Stolle v. Bennett, Docket No. 32429, 2007 Opinion No. 50,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, March 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Idaho Industrial Commission (Commission) did not err in refusing to allow employee's doctor's post-hearing deposition, JRP 10E(1) and (4), and was not required to certify facts for contempt for witness under Idaho Code § 72-715. The Commission did not err in denying the employee benefits. Employer was entitled to sanctions under Idaho App. R. 11.1.
|
|||||
| Univ. Life Ins. Co. v. Liquidator for the Univ. Life Ins. Co., Docket No. 31194, 2007 Opinion No. 47,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, March 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The appellate court had jurisdiction over an appeal of a decision denying the policyholders' claims as to the distribution of an insolvent insurer's assets where the district court had not entered a final judgment as to the claims at issue until after their notice of appeal, but a surrender charge was erroneously deducted from the balances owed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
