 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Country Cove Dev., Inc. v. May, Docket No. 31536, 2006 Opinion No. 113,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, December 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sister's false statement that her husband would commit suicide if the brother and his wife did not agree to the terms of a contract was too vague and insubstantial to constitute duress because of the lapse of time, the opportunity to determine the reality of the threat, and the fact that plaintiffs' were represented by counsel.
|
|||||
| Park v. Banbury, Docket No. 32861, 2006 Opinion No. 112,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, December 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Idaho Code § 63-511, district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over landowners' claims due to their failure to exhaust administrative remedies; the landowners' claims that the county assessor improperly assessed properties by neighborhood and utilized other improper procedures were challenges within the administrative framework.
|
|||||
| Ransom v. Topaz Mktg., L.P., Docket No. 32146, 2006 Opinion No. 114,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, December 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a trespass action arising from the construction of a road over an easement, a remand was necessary because a district court failed to distinguish between permissible and excessive actions or find whether the damages were permanent or temporary. Further, nominal damages of $35,000 were reversed because they were not trifling in nature.
|
|||||
| State v. Zueger, Docket No. 31761/33071, 2006 Opinion No. 115,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, December 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a telephonic warrant was signed by a prosecuting attorney at the direction of a magistrate judge, this procedural defect under Idaho Code Ann. § 19-4406 did not call into question the finding of probable cause to justify issuance of the warrant. The district court erred by granting defendant's motion to suppress.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
