 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Flood v. Katz, Docket No. 31957, 2006 Opinion No. 96,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, October 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court improperly set aside a settlement of judgment pursuant to Idaho R. Civ. P. 60(b) because procedural disputes in deposing defendant while his appeal was pending was not an unusual circumstance and defendant's transfer of assets to his wife was not a misrepresentation to the court in obtaining satisfaction of the judgment.
|
|||||
| Marchand v. Jem Sportwear, Inc., Docket No. 32476, 2006 Opinion No. 97,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, October 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a products liability action, an unattended child found fireworks and a cigarette lighter. The child was wearing a cotton T-shirt which caught fire either from the lighter or the fireworks, and the child was severely burned as a result. No defect in the T-shirt was identified. The tragic result was not attributable to the shirt's manufacturer.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Lambros, Docket No. 31867, 2006 Opinion No. 74,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, October 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Purchaser was not required under Idaho R. Civ. P. 11(a)(2)(B) to present new evidence in a motion to reconsider an interlocutory order finding that seller did not breach contract to sell property, and where the seller made reasonable efforts to clear title, the seller did not breach his implied obligation even though the sale was never completed.
|
|||||
| Kirkland v. State, Docket No. 32714, 2006 Opinion No. 98,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, October 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Idaho Code § 19-4906(b) allowed a district court on its own initiative to dismiss a petition for post-conviction relief based on untimeliness; however, the district court erred in dismissing defendant's petition because there was an issue of material fact as to the timeliness of the petition.
|
|||||
| State v. Cardenas, Docket No. 31758, 2006 Opinion No. 75,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, November 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court properly suppressed physical evidence in defendant's trial for concealing a dangerous weapon and drug possession as an officer's contact with defendant was an illegal detention, not a consensual encounter, and the State failed to show that the initial illegality did not taint the subsequent warrant to search the entire vehicle.
|
|||||
| State v. Salisbury, Docket No. 32200, 2006 Opinion No. 76,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, November 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Magistrate properly refused to accept defendant's nolo contendere plea under Idaho Crim. R. 11 to a charge of vehicular manslaughter under Idaho Code Ann. § 18-4006(c)(3) because neither Idaho Code Ann. §§ 19-1712, 19-1713 nor Idaho R. Evid. 410(a)(2) authorized a court to accept such a plea in an Idaho criminal proceeding.
|
|||||
| State v. Yakovac, Docket No. 31505, Docket No. 32033, 2006 Opinion No. 77,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, November 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for possession of methamphetamine, in violation of Idaho Code Ann. § 37-2732(c)(1) was affirmed. Trial counsel stipulated to a positive urinalysis result for the drug, but defendant was entitled to a hearing in her post-conviction relief application when counsel's failure to introduce a jacket may have prejudiced defendant.
|
|||||
| Slaven v. Rd. to Recovery, Docket No. 32650, 2006 Opinion No. 99,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, November 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an applicant failed to allege in motion for reconsideration under Idaho Code Ann. § 72-1368(7) of denial of unemployment benefits why evidence had not been presented to appeals examiner, under Appellate Practice and Procedure Rule 6(B) of the Idaho Employment Security Law, the Industrial Commission properly denied admission of new evidence.
|
|||||
| Idaho Conservation League, Inc. v. Idaho State Dep't of Agric., NO. 31751, Ref. No. 06RH-17,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, November 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
