 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hayes v. Conway, Docket No. 33050, 2007 Opinion No. 43,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, June 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The inmate's habeas corpus petition was properly dismissed where prison officials were not deliberately indifferent to the inmate's dental care needs and thereby violated his Eighth Amendment rights; there were disparate ideas regarding the inmate's course of treatment of his periodontal disease in one tooth.
|
|||||
| Berry v. Ostrom, Docket No. 32561, 2007 Opinion No. 44,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, June 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No accounting of other partnership accounts was necessary before trial court acted on partner's claim to recover debts against debtor where, pursuant to Idaho Code § 28-3-116, he became liable for contribution to any of the other makers of the note who paid part of debtor's share; liability was not intertwined with other partnership transactions.
|
|||||
| State v. Timbana, Docket No. 31891, 2007 Opinion No. 45,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, June 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: At a probation violation evidentiary hearing, a prosecutor's initial opposition to defendant's Idaho Crim. R. 35 motion for sentence reduction, while a recommendation in breach of an agreement between defendant and the State, did not bar disposition sentencing by the same judge because the recommendation was not enough to color the judge's mind.
|
|||||
| Chapin v. Linden, Docket No. 32946, 2007 Opinion No. 94,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, June 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alleged oral agreement to purchase land was not subject to specific enforcement under Idaho Code Ann. § 9-504 because the parties had never reached agreement on a deed release provision that was material to the contract.
|
|||||
| Downey v. Vavold, Docket No. 33279, 2007 Opinion No. 89,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, June 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Landowners failed to prove that a fence inside adjacent property was a boundary by agreement because the mere building of the fence by the adjacent property's former owner did not constitute agreement, and there was no evidence that the former owner had acquiesced in claims that the fence was the boundary.
|
|||||
| Griffin v. Anderson, Docket No. 32617, 2007 Opinion No. 91,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, June 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While the evidence suggested that a fence constructed by defendants acted as both a barrier and a boundary, there was substantial and competent evidence to support the finding that the fence served as a barrier first and foremost. There was no agreement by acquiescence, and the doctrine of boundary by agreement did not apply.
|
|||||
| Karel v. Dep't of Fin. (In re Karel), Docket No. 33191, 2007 Opinion No. 93,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, June 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Idaho Department of Finance did not have the authority to request the documents it did from the employee pursuant to Idaho Code § 30-14-411(d), as the documents were not subject to the recordkeeping requirements of Idaho Code § 30-14-411(c). Employee's securities license should not have been suspended as a result of her refusal to produce records.
|
|||||
| Super Grade, Inc. v. Idaho DOC, Docket No. 32695, 2007 Opinion No. 90,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, June 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Company and corporation had substantially the same management and control and there was a continuity of business activity; thus, Idaho Code § 72-1351 required a transfer of the company's experience rating account to the corporation. Under Idaho Code § 72-1362, corporation was not exempt from Idaho Department of Commerce and Labor's lien claims.
|
|||||
| Workman v. State, Docket No. 33620, 2007 Opinion No. 92,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, June 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's guilty plea was found to be voluntary and was actually entered, Idaho Crim. R. 11(c), Idaho Code § 19-1713. Appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were properly evaluated under Strickland and the district court did not have to give 20-days' notice before summarily dismissing the petition, Idaho Code § 19-4906.
|
|||||
| Foley v. Grigg, Docket No. 33059, 2007 Opinion No. 95,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, June 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Settlement payee's purported assignment of a payment transferred nothing, notwithstanding court approval of the assignment under Idaho Code Ann. § 28-9-109(d)(13)(B)(v), because the payee had previously assigned the payment to another party and thus had lost control of the payment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
