Legal Opinion

Chenoweth v. Sanger

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided January 29, 1993No. 19117PublishedCited by 12 opinions

Lewiston, October Term, 1992.

1Opinion of the Court

TROUT, Justice.

This is an action for collection of interest on a judgment. Although the factual history is somewhat complex, this is simply an action for collection of interest on a judgment. For the reasons hereafter stated we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The relationship between the parties to this action originated when defendant Thomas Daniel Sanger (Sanger), who is not a party to this appeal, retained appellant Nicholas Chenoweth (Chenoweth) to represent him in a felony case in which Sanger was charged with murder. Respondent Allen Y. Bowles (Bowles) was…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Sexton v. DreyfusSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
  3. City of New York v. SaperSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  4. United States v. River Coal Company, Inc. Polls Creek Coal Company, Inc. New Brush Creek Mining, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1984
  5. Diamond v. Farmers Group, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1990

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Powell v. SellersIdaho Court of Appeals · 1997
  2. Hindmarsh v. MockIdaho Supreme Court · 2002
  3. State v. WilkinsIdaho Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Puckett v. Oakfabco, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Perkins v. U.S. Transformer WestIdaho Supreme Court · 1999

7 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