Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Hipwell v. Challenger Pallet & Supply

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided August 27, 1993No. 19700Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

BISTLINE, Justice,

specially concurring and dissenting.

I concur in Justice Johnson’s dissent as to issue V of the majority opinion.

It is necessary, in this justice’s opinion, to dissent further from the majority’s discussion, specifically, that regarding issue II, the propriety of the Commission’s denial of medical benefits after August 8, 1989. The majority opinion misses the point of Sprague v. Caldwell Transp., Inc., 116 Idaho 720, 779 P.2d 395 (1989), by premising the opinion’s analysis solely on whether Hipwell's medical condition had improved. The central holding in Sprague is that it is…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Sun Valley Shopping Center, Inc. v. Idaho Power Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Hattenburg v. BlanksIdaho Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Sprague v. Caldwell Transportation Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Hill v. E&L FARMSIdaho Supreme Court · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API