 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State v. Robinson, Docket No. 32691, 2006 Opinion No. 77,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, July 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though defendant's guilty plea for violating Idaho Code Ann. § 18-6608 was set aside and dismissed under Idaho Code Ann. § 19-2604(1), he still had to meet the requirements of Idaho Code Ann. § 18-8310 in order to be released from the sex offender registry; because he could not do so, his motion for release was properly denied.
|
|||||
| State v. Watkins, Docket No. 31700, 2006 Opinion No. 78,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, July 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court reversed an order that required a father to sign parental contract that required he submit to random drug tests in conjunction with his son's probation or go to jail because while Idaho Code § 20-522 gave a court authority to order such contracts, the contract was not valid where it was signed under the threat of jail.
|
|||||
| Mains v. Cach, Docket No. 31879, 2006 Opinion No. 79,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, August 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment should not have been granted to the doctor on the patient's medical malpractice claim where, pursuant to Idaho R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(B), expert testimony could change, and there was sufficient evidence that the patient's expert acquainted himself with the local standard of care at the relevant time to defeat summary judgment.
|
|||||
| Turner v. Cold Springs Canyon Ltd. P'ship, Docket No. 31795, 2006 Opinion No. 80,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, August 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Upon summary judgment in an action to quiet title, the district court did not err in declaring the existence of a permanent, unmovable, twenty-foot-wide easement. Because the appellant brought a frivolous appeal, the respondents were awarded costs and attorney fees under Idaho Code Ann. § 12-121.
|
|||||
| State v. Hauser, Docket No. 31695, 2006 Opinion No. 54,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, August 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was deprived of her right to an impartial jury, Idaho Const. art. 1, § 7, because a juror said he would "give more weight" to the word of an officer and would tend to believe the officer at trial over the testimony of defendant, and when the juror was asked if he could put his bias aside during the trial, he responded "I don't think so."
|
|||||
| Horner v. Sani-Top, Inc., Docket No. 31588, 2006 Opinion No. 81,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, August 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not err in entering judgment under Idaho Code § 6-1603 since not one of family's damage awards for noneconomic damages in wrongful death action exceeded statutory cap, and court correctly initially applied comparative fault to each family member's total damage award and then multiplied each award by 13% fault attributable to manufacturer.
|
|||||
| Sanchez v. State, Docket No. 32266, 2006 Opinion No. 82,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, August 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in determining that Idaho Personnel Commission was authorized to award attorney fees against Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC) as Idaho Code §§ 12-121 and 67-5316(4) did not support award. Idaho Code § 67-5316(4) did not waive IDOC's sovereign immunity from interest awards as statute was not specific enough to be a waiver.
|
|||||
| State v. Hooper, Docket No. 31025, 2006 Opinion No. 55,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, August 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's Sixth Amendment rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated when a videotaped interview of a purported victim of child sexual abuse was admitted over his objection because he was not given the opportunity to cross-examine; the interview bore the indicia of testimonial statements and were given to a nurse working with police.
|
|||||
| City of Boise City v. Keep the Commandments Coalition (In re Initiative Petition for a Ten Commandments Display), Docket No. 31308, 2006 Opinion No. 84,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, August 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Idaho Const. art. III, § 1 and Idaho Code § 50-501, coalition's petition for initiative election demanding enactment of an ordinance for a Ten Commandments display to be placed in a park qualified for the ballot for consideration by the voters; the supreme court could not interrupt the consideration of a properly qualified initiative.
|
|||||
| Mann v. Granite Reeder Water & Sewer Dist., Docket No. 31587, 2006 Opinion No. 83,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, August 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Idaho Code § 42-3222 required water and sewer districts to submit to voters only proposed obligations that district would incur; local improvement bonds paid back by special assessment were not subject to election requirement. District's ordinance to form local improvement district did not violate statute, and validity could not be challenged.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
