Chenoweth v. Sanger
Idaho Supreme Court
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
- United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Sexton v. DreyfusSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- City of New York v. SaperSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- 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
- Diamond v. Farmers Group, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1990
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Powell v. SellersIdaho Court of Appeals · 1997
- Hindmarsh v. MockIdaho Supreme Court · 2002
- State v. WilkinsIdaho Supreme Court · 1994
- Puckett v. Oakfabco, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1999
- Perkins v. U.S. Transformer WestIdaho Supreme Court · 1999
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.