Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Curtis v. Becker

Idaho Court of Appeals

Decided June 13, 1997No. 22627Published

1Concurrence

LANSING, Judge,

specially concurring.

I concur in the lead opinion. I write separately because, in my view, the result would be the same even without application of the clean hands doctrine upon which the lead opinion relies. I conclude that even if Curtis had been more forthcoming in his dealings with the City of Twin Falls, he would not be entitled to recover because he acted officiously in installing unwanted physical improvements on the Beckers’ property and because the benefit to the Beckers was incidental to Curtis’s pursuit of his own financial interest.

As the lead opinion notes, the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hettinga v. SybrandyIdaho Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Chinchurreta v. Evergreen Management, Inc.Idaho Court of Appeals · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API