|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
Idaho - December 5 - December 19, 2007
|
| |
BMC West Corp. v. Horkley, Docket No. 33140, Opinion No. 128,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, December 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where a builder bought materials from a supplier to use on defendants' building project, the supplier was entitled to a lien under Idaho Code Ann. §§ 45-501 and 45-505 on the buildings that the project produced because, inter alia, defendants remained in arrears on their debt, the open account defense was inapplicable, and the lien was timely.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Horkley v. Horkley, Docket No. 32885, Opinion No. 129,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, December 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where an ex-husband failed to make payments on a promissory note, the statute of limitations, Idaho Code Ann. § 5-216, did not bar the ex-wife's breach of contract claim, because the ex-husband's payment of interest or principal under Idaho Code Ann. § 5-238 on May 23, 2001 served to restart the statute on all of the installments.
|
|
| |
Navarro v. Yonkers, Docket No. 34118, Opinion No: 126,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, December 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a child custody dispute, mother's previous admission, in another state, that she was unfit with respect to two of her children was not res judicata, and the mother was not collaterally estopped, under Idaho Code Ann. § 32-11-303(a), from seeking custody of a third child because that child was not at issue in the earlier proceeding.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
