Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

G&M Farms v. Funk Irrigation Co.

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided March 19, 1991No. 18136Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBistline, Justice

As to the majority’s characterization of crop damage as economic damages, my vote is to concur but not with conviction or enthusiasm — but rather by way of giving some forewarning that future cases involving that philosophy will find me urging the Court to back away from denying damage awards in cases such as this — where recoverable economic losses are very often the major items of a plaintiff’s total loss. As to the summary judgment issue, I concur in the result but am somewhat troubled by some of what has been written.

In his specially concurring opinion, specifically the second paragraph,…

2Cases cited38 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  4. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. Calder v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

33 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