 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cordova v. Bonneville County Joint Sch. Dist. No. 93, Docket No. 31188, 2007 Opinion No. 100,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, July 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because school district was not "business" in the ordinary meaning of the word, it could not be the teacher's category two statutory employer, and was not entitled to immunity from tort suit under Idaho Code § 72-223. There was an issue of fact as to whether the teacher was a borrowed employee; therefore, summary judgment was improper on the issue.
|
|||||
| Garcia v. Windley, Docket No. 32274, 2007 Opinion No. 102,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, July 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of a motion for summary judgment on mitigation was not reviewed because it was an interlocutory order from which no direct appeal could be taken. A proximate cause instruction that used a "but for" test was erroneously given because a "substantial factor" test needed to be employed in a case with multiple possible causes of injury.
|
|||||
| State v. Field, Docket No. 33654, 2007 Opinion No. 101,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, July 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Joinder of defendant's sexual offenses under Idaho Crim. R. 14 was erroneous because the similarities that both girls were only temporarily in the household, that the acts occurred in defendant's home, and that the abuse began with "innocent" touching were insufficient to prove a common scheme or plan.
|
|||||
| Straub v. Smith, Docket No. 33348, 2007 Opinion No. 99,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, July 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because buyer and sellers agreed to dismiss buyer's action under Idaho R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii), sellers relinquished claim for attorney fees and costs. Had parties wished to reserve issue of fees from dismissal, they had the opportunity to expressly agree to such a provision. Buyer was awarded attorney fees on appeal under Idaho Code § 12-120(3).
|
|||||
| State v. Smith, Docket No. 31830, 2007 Opinion No. 51,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, August 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(1), 18-2407(1)(b), district court did not err in sentences for grand theft to balance need for deterrence and rehabilitation with need for restitution. Idaho Crim. R. 35 motion was properly denied as sentences were not excessive. Under Idaho Code § 19-5304, awarding victim restitution for non-invoiced items was improper.
|
|||||
| State v. Perry, Docket No. 33062, 2007 Opinion No. 52,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, August 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statement from one minor victim did not show that she totally invented entire prior sexual incident with defendant; thus, evidence was not relevant either to rebut foster mother's statement that victims had never lied to her about a significant matter, or to impeach victims. Thus, under Idaho R. Evid. 401-403, and 412, evidence was inadmissible.
|
|||||
| Madison v. Craven, Docket No. 33710, 2007 Opinion No. 53,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, August 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of prison officials was proper as prison inmate had no Fifth Amendment claim where statements after conviction did not implicate right against self-incrimination and were not used against him in criminal proceeding. Defendant's complained-of conditions were not sufficiently serious to amount to Eighth Amendment violation.
|
|||||
| State v. Gonzales, Docket No. 31976, 2007 Opinion No. 54,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, August 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not required to pay victim restitution for forfeited tuition and supplies because Idaho Code Ann. § 19-5304(2) prohibited restitution beyond that authorized by the victim restitution statute and prohibited victim restitution as a condition of probation in excess of that authorized by Idaho Code Ann. § 19-5304.
|
|||||
| State v. Braaten, Docket No. 33161, 2007 Opinion No. 55,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, August 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Consideration of defendant's indigence in denying him probation did not violated the U.S. Constitution's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses because such denial was related to the State's strong interest in disallowing probation for an offender who could not be adequately supervised or whose release would present an undue risk.
|
|||||
| State v. Keene, Docket No. 32504, 2007 Opinion No. 56,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, August 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if officers had unlawfully arrested defendant under the Fourth Amendment and Idaho Const. art. I, § 17 when she fled the scene of a consensual encounter, a motion to suppress was properly denied because there was no causal connection between the arrest and the discovery of drugs inside of a car.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
