Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Bouten Construction Co. v. H.F. Magnuson Co.

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1999No. 22707, 23681Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Justice SCHILLING,

Pro Tern., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur with the Court’s opinion except that I respectfully dissent from Sections D and E. In my view, the additional costs claimed by Bouten were capable of ascertainment for purposes of the District Court’s award of pre-judgment and interjudgment interest.

I. INTRODUCTION

It is weh settled law in Idaho that prejudgment interest may be awarded where the amount of liability is liquidated or capable of ascertainment by mere mathematical process. Farm Development Corp. v. Hernandez, 93 Idaho 918, 920, 478 P.2d 298, 300 (1970).

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Prier v. Refrigeration Engineering Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Laycock v. ParkerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Ervin Construction Co. v. Van OrdenIdaho Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Mitchell v. FlandroIdaho Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Chenery v. Agri-Lines Corp.Idaho Supreme Court · 1988

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API