Legal Opinion · Dissent

Leliefeld v. Johnson

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided February 18, 1983No. 12983Published

1DissentBistline, Justice

I have no trouble with the statement of the underlying facts and I have readily concurred in parts I, IV, V, and VI of the opinion of the Court. I am unable to concur in parts II, III, and VII, and will address each separately.

Part II. Post-Accident Signing. A.

The resolution of this issue of law is important to future personal injury actions, but in my view is far overemphasized by the defendants, and in turn the Court, as applied to this case. Were the Court to merely assume that the evidence of post-accident signing was improperly admitted, it could then in a cleared atmosphere consider…

2Cases cited58 opinions

  1. McGowan v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  2. Reed v. ReedSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  4. Eisenstadt v. BairdSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  5. F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1920

53 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