Legal Opinion · Dissent

Klam v. Koppel

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided October 25, 1941No. 6830Published

1Dissent

AILSHIE, J.,

(dissenting in part) — I concur in affirming the judgment for compensatory damages. I think the evidence is abundant to support the verdict for conversion of the tractor as a whole.

I am unable, however, to agree to the affirmance of the judgment for punitive damages. This, in my judgment, is not such a case as comes within the rule. We have no statute in this state authorizing the imposition of punitive or exemplary damages. The principle, in so far as it exists here, comes from our adoption of the common law. It is allowed in the nature of a punishment to the defendant and a…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. PrenticeSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. Gill v. SellingOregon Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Unfried v. LibertIdaho Supreme Court · 1911
  4. Gunnell v. Largilliere Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Erwin v. MilliganSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1934

4 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