 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Armstrong v. Farmers Ins. Co., Docket No. 31715, 2006 Opinion No. 58,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, May 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of the insurer, dismissing the insured's claim that his insurance policy covering a vehicle also provided coverage for injuries received while operating an off-road motorcycle, was affirmed because there was nothing misleading about the insurance policy endorsement.
|
|||||
| Atwood v. Smith, Docket No. 30214, 2006 Opinion No. 60,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, May 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court was correct in finding that the owners violated the covenants, conditions and restrictions (CCRs) by operating an in-home daycare, because regardless of the definition of "daycare center," the CCRs clearly prohibited subdivision lot owners from running a business on their lots.
|
|||||
| Bedke v. Pickett Ranch & Sheep Co., Docket No. 31445, 2006 Opinion No. 57,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, May 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment declaring an easement over ranch land was vacated in part where, although parties had intended an easement for a water pipeline, the easement's location uncertain. Fee award under Idaho Code Ann. § 12-120(3) was improper where agreement showing parties' intent was not a "commercial agreement" because it was not central to the claim.
|
|||||
| Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Appel, Docket No. 31760, 2006 Opinion No. 61,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, May 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a credit bid used by a purchaser at a trustee's sale was the equivalent of a cash sale, the sale was void because the trustee failed to comply with notice provisions of Idaho Code Ann. § 45-1506A. The trustee's compliance with Idaho Code Ann. § 45-1506B was immaterial where the borrower had no notice of an earlier rescheduled sale date.
|
|||||
| Hayes v. State, Docket No. 31746, 2006 Opinion No. 36,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, May 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was entitled to an evidentiary hearing under Idaho Code Ann. § 19-4906 on his claim that his counsel did not inform that upon conviction he could be required to pay restitution because a transcript confirmed that he was not informed on the record at the plea hearing that his guilty plea could result in an order of restitution.
|
|||||
| Mumford v. Miller, Docket No. 32061, 2006 Opinion No. 59,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, May 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of the claimant's request for an award of attorney fees was affirmed because the arbitrator determined the issue, and the appellate court would not review the propriety of the arbitrator's factual determinations or the correctness of his determinations regarding applicable Idaho law.
|
|||||
| State v. Kerrigan, Docket No. 32494, 2006 Opinion No. 63,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court had jurisdiction to review defendant's Idaho Crim. R. 35 motion as it was not a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas but was motion to correct illegal sentence and thus timely, and, as Idaho Code §§ 18-915 and 19-2520 could both enhance Idaho Code § 18-907 separately and independently of each other, his 45-year sentence was not illegal.
|
|||||
| State v. Lewis, NO. 31684, Ref. No. 06R-67,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, May 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Thirsty's L.L.C. v. Tolerico, Docket No. 31743, 2006 Opinion No. 62,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of independent representative of motor fuel supplier dismissing gas station seller's action against him for tortious interference with contract as there was no contract with which representative had interfered; gas station's purchasers had not assumed seller's contract with his supplier.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
