 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Haw v. State Bd. of Med., Docket No. 31862, 2006 Opinion No. 64,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, May 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Idaho Code § 54-1806A(8), Idaho State Board of Medicine had discretion to impose sanctions, but it abused its discretion in concluding there was no reasonable basis for apportioning its award of costs and fees against the doctor. The sanction had to be related to the discipline. Doctor's requests for attorney fees on appeal was denied.
|
|||||
| State v. Rose, Docket No. 31966, 2006 Opinion No. 37,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, May 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Confrontation Clause did not govern proceedings used to find defendant in probation violation. His due process right to confront witnesses under Fourteenth Amendment was not violated by allowing probation officer to testify regarding e-mail and statements made by other witnesses. Evidence supported finding that defendant absconded from supervision.
|
|||||
| State v. Jaborra, Docket No. 31710, 2006 Opinion No. 38,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, May 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the district court's finding that defendant did not voluntary consent to the opening of the box was not clearly erroneous pursuant to the Fourth Amendment, the order suppressing the evidence found within the pillbox was affirmed.
|
|||||
| State v. Christiansen, Docket No. 31449, 2006 Opinion No. 40,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, June 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though defendant's rights under the Fourth Amendment were violated when the prosecutor impermissibly elicited testimony that defendant had refused to consent to a search of his business after a fire, the error was harmless because the testimony of defendant's accountant negated the implication of a financial motive for the fire.
|
|||||
| State v. Cook, Docket No. 31642, 2006 Opinion No. 39,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, June 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where information charging defendant with purchase of firearm under Idaho Code Ann. § 18-3316 listed the territorial jurisdiction of Idaho and cited to the applicable statute defendant was charged under, it was sufficient for the district court to imply the necessary allegations against defendant, and inclusion of "purchase" implied knowing act.
|
|||||
| State v. Dolsby, Docket No. 31636, 2006 Opinion No. 41,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, June 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm was affirmed because the fact that defendant knowingly possessed the muzzle loader, regardless of his good intention, was all that was necessary to sustain a conviction, and defendant did not show he accidentally possessed the muzzle loader and that he did not intend to have it in his possession.
|
|||||
| Canyon County Bd. of Equalization v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., LLC, Docket No. 31063, 2006 Opinion No. 66,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, June 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed a decision by the district court that in an appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals, allowed the counties to present new evidence of valuation under Idaho Code § 63-205, because Idaho Code § 63-3812 did not preclude the introduction of evidence in a trial de novo.
|
|||||
| Horner v. Sani-Top, Inc., Docket No. 31588, 2006 Opinion No. 68,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, June 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly applied settlement cap for noneconomic damages pursuant to Idaho Code Ann. § 6-1603 after applying comparative fault between the retailer and the manufacturer. The manufacturer was not entitled to an offset under Idaho Code Ann. § 6-805 when the retailer had settled out of court.
|
|||||
| Obenchain v. McAlvain Constr., Inc., Docket No. 32140, 2006 Opinion No. 67,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, June 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision by the Industrial Commission of the State of Idaho to deny the claimant's administrative appeal as untimely was affirmed because the claimant had not stated a valid, legal justification for the untimely appeal. Court would not consider an argument that was not raised before the Commission.
|
|||||
| Roe v. Doe (In re Doe), Docket No. 32030, 2006 Opinion No. 65,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, June 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order terminating the father's rights was reversed where, pursuant to Idaho Code § 16-2005(a), magistrate judge failed to adequately consider the father's evidence that the lack of a normal parental relationship was not without just cause; there was no consideration of the distance between the parties or the fact that the father had missed work.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
