 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| City of Coeur d'Alene v. Mackin (In re Ownership of Sanders Beach), Docket No. 32337/32380/32410/32411/32443/32444/ 32970/32971, 2006 Opinion No. 86,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, September 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred when it determined that the ordinary high water mark under Idaho Code Ann. § 58-104 was 2130 feet above mean sea level since the calculation was not determined by how often the water dropped or rose or whether there was vegetation at a certain place. The district court should have considered the historical facts of a lake.
|
|||||
| State v. Doe (In re Doe), Docket No. 31266, 2006 Opinion No. 87,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, September 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence to support a finding that the father neglected his daughter pursuant to Idaho Code § 16-2005(b); therefore, the magistrate judge properly terminated the father's parental rights. The father's neglect, violence and drinking had a highly detrimental effect and there was no point in further considering reunification.
|
|||||
| Carter v. Carter (In re Carter JJC Trust), Docket No. 31329, 2006 Opinion No. 88,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, September 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decedent created a valid trust even though he mischaracterized property as his separate property because he had right to commit his interest in community property to the trust, but lower courts erred in holding that his wife could not withdraw her 50 % interest because she had a right to her community interest plus any rights granted by the trust.
|
|||||
| Davidson v. Wright, Docket No. 31792, Docket No. 31793, 2006 Opinion No. 89,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, September 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Sun Valley, Idaho, Code § 1-7-2-3(C) stated that a city clerk's review of a proposed marijuana initiative was limited to form only, there was nothing that gave the clerk the authority to review it for validity or constitutionality; therefore, relief should have been granted to several presenters under Idaho Code Ann. § 50-406.
|
|||||
| Barbee v. WMA Secs., Inc., Docket No. 30131/31298, 2006 Opinion No. 91,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, September 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In investors' action against their brokers for securities violations, the trial court correctly ruled the investors were not entitled to pursue fees in the award confirmation proceedings as former Idaho Code Ann. § 30-1446 indicated that there was no independent cause of action for attorney fees.
|
|||||
| Ferro v. Soc'y of St. Pius X, Docket No. 31807, 2006 Opinion No. 90,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, September 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Damages awarded in parishioner's action against priest, chapel, and priestly society for intentional infliction of emotion distress were not proper because statute of limitations had run and equitable estoppel did not apply in that parishioner filed suit three years after he should have known that society had misrepresented intentions to settle.
|
|||||
| State v. Doe, Docket No. 32240, 2006 Opinion No. 92,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, September 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though the incarcerated father and his daughter shared a loving relationship, termination of the parent-child relationship was in the daughter's best interest under Idaho Code Ann. § 16-2005 as she would be well supported by her great-aunt, and would benefit from a sense of finality and comparative normalcy and permanency.
|
|||||
| State v. Santistevan, Docket No. 31918, 2006 Opinion No. 65,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, October 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated when he was ordered to undergo an examination by a State expert in an attempted murder case because defendant indicated an intent to introduce psychiatric evidence in his defense; moreover, Idaho R. Evid. 503 was not violated either since, inter alia, the communications were not confidential.
|
|||||
| Twin Falls County v. City of Twin Falls (In re Idaho Code 1-2218), Docket No. 30889/30890/30891, 2006 Opinion No. 93,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, October 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court improperly ordered several cities to pay a pro rata share of housing a magistrate's division in a county courthouse because Idaho Code Ann. § 1-2218 only required the cities to provide suitable and adequate quarters; a provision for the sharing of costs was made under Idaho Code Ann. § 31-3201A.
|
|||||
| Foster v. Kootenai Med. Ctr., Docket No. 32473, 2006 Opinion No. 66,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, October 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a malpractice suit, trial court properly denied patient's Idaho R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider because new evidence that hospital knew of patient's claim would not change trial court's summary judgment ruling for hospital that was based on patient's failure to give the proper notice required by Idaho Code Ann. § 6-906 of Tort Claims Act.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
