Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Chacon v. Sperry Corp.

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided June 3, 1986No. 15898, 15899Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

BISTLINE,

Justice, concurring in part only and dissenting:

Where this Court recently in Leliefeld II bottomed its decision on Odenwalt v. Zaring1 on the proposition that when our legislature adopts the statutory law of another state, it adopts case law from that other state which interprets or applies that statutory law, the district judge and the respondents will have just cause for becoming disconcerted, disappointed, and despondent in reading today’s opinion for the Court— an opinion which acknowledges the existence of I.R.C.P. 10(a)(4), but sees little in its long tenure as a statute —…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Farrell v. Votator Division of Chemetron Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1973
  3. Barrington v. A. H. Robins Co.California Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Odenwalt v. ZaringIdaho Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Day v. Western Loan & Building Co.California Court of Appeal · 1940

14 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