Legal Opinion

Hough v. Fry

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided March 19, 1998No. 23781PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TROUT, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from the district court’s denial of a motion to amend a complaint for medical malpractice and grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

I

BACKGROUND

Barbara Hough was sent by her orthopedic surgeon to Gem Physical Therapy in Emmett to receive physical therapy for chronic ankle instability. Gem Physical Therapy is owned by the defendant-respondents, Robert and Elizabeth Fry. Hough’s case was assigned to defendant-respondent Chip Sands, a physical therapist employed by Gem Physical Therapy. Sands asked Hough about her medical history and examined…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Badell v. BeeksIdaho Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Keller v. RogstadIdaho Supreme Court · 1987
  3. State v. McCoyIdaho Supreme Court · 1996
  4. State v. BarnesIdaho Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Southern Idaho Production Credit Ass'n v. GneitingIdaho Supreme Court · 1985

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Hoskinson v. HoskinsonIdaho Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Hayward v. Valley Vista Care Corp.Idaho Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Jones v. CrawforthIdaho Supreme Court · 2009
  4. Eldridge v. WestIdaho Supreme Court · 2020
  5. Hough v. Fry (In Re Hough)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 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