Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Andre v. Morrow
Idaho Supreme Court
Decided April 13, 1984No. 14843Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBistline, Justice
There are statements in the majority opinion with which I am in accord. As pointed out therein, the appeal is from the grant of a summary judgment in favor of the Conservator and against the Morrows. This judgment was entered in the Idaho County case and not in the Nez Perce County case. The Conservator’s brief insists that by amending their Idaho County complaint to allege the California judgment, they were suing on the California judgment — citing I.C. § 10-1306. Respondent’s Brief, p. 13. The record bears out that contention, and mention of the filing of the California judgment in Nez…
2Cases cited58 opinions
- Williams v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Durfee v. DukeSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Estin v. EstinSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Wisconsin v. Pelican InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Underwriters National Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life & Accident & Health Insurance Guaranty Ass'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.