Bouten Construction Co. v. H.F. Magnuson Co.
Idaho Supreme Court
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
- Prier v. Refrigeration Engineering Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1968
- Laycock v. ParkerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
- Ervin Construction Co. v. Van OrdenIdaho Supreme Court · 1993
- Mitchell v. FlandroIdaho Supreme Court · 1972
- Chenery v. Agri-Lines Corp.Idaho Supreme Court · 1988
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.