Legal Opinion

Roe Ex Rel. Roe v. Harris

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided May 21, 1996No. 21668PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOHNSON, Justice.

This is an attorney fees case in which the party requesting fees invoked both the private attorney general doctrine and I.C. § 12-117 (Supp.1995). We conclude as follows:

1. Between the private attorney general doctrine and I.C. § 12-117, the statute provides the exclusive basis for awarding attorney fees against a state agency-

2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the prevailing party or in denying discretionary costs.

8. The trial court abused its discretion in denying attorney fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-117 for a partial judgment declaring a conflict…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Sun Valley Shopping Center, Inc. v. Idaho Power Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1991
  2. William v. CenarrusaIdaho Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Andre v. MorrowIdaho Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Mickelsen v. City of RexburgIdaho Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Bott v. Idaho State Building AuthorityIdaho Supreme Court · 1992

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Perry v. Magic Valley Regional Medical CenterIdaho Supreme Court · 2000
  2. New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. JohnsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Hayden Lake Fire Protection District v. AlcornIdaho Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Rincover v. State, Department of FinanceIdaho Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Arambarri v. ArmstrongIdaho Supreme Court · 2012

20 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