Legal Opinion · Dissent

Wolford v. Tankersley

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided February 5, 1985No. 13764Published

1DissentBistline, Justice

My concurrence in the opinion of Shepard, J., is based on my agreement with that which he has written. In particular, I am impressed with his view, expressed near the end of his opinion, that the Empeys “have been made whole by Wolford.” I *1071further agree that “If mistake there was, it was unilateral on the part of the Empeys and resulted only from the actions of their agent Wolford.” As stated earlier in his opinion, and a fact which cannot be gainsaid, “Wolford was the agent of the Empeys.” And, at the beginning of his opinion, it is beyond cavil that “the Empeys were responsible for and…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Sartain v. Dixie Coal & Iron Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Melton v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1948
  3. Loomis v. ChurchIdaho Supreme Court · 1954
  4. In re Walsh's EstateSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1909
  5. MacDonald v. LongWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1926

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