Legal Opinion
Brizendine v. Nampa Meridian Irrigation District
Idaho Supreme Court
Decided March 26, 1976No. 11742PublishedCited by 76 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
McFADDEN, Justice.
James E. and Martha Brizendine and thirty-seven other parties (hereinafter *582plaintiffs) instituted this action against the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District (hereinafter irrigation district), seeking damages for injury to property when the district’s irrigation canal bank broke flooding properties of the plaintiffs. After a court trial, the district court held the irrigation district liable in tort for its negligence. Subsequent to the trial, the irrigation district moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims for general damages and attorneys’ fees on the grounds that the claims…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- George Foltis, Inc. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1941
- Smith v. Big Lost River Irrigation DistrictIdaho Supreme Court · 1961
- Casey v. Nampa and Meridian Irrigation DistrictIdaho Supreme Court · 1963
- Walker v. DistlerIdaho Supreme Court · 1956
- Skaggs Drug Centers, Inc. v. City of Idaho FallsIdaho Supreme Court · 1965
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by76 opinions
- Alegria v. PayonkIdaho Supreme Court · 1980
- Black Canyon Racquetball Club, Inc. v. Idaho First National BankIdaho Supreme Court · 1991
- Sanchez v. GaleyIdaho Supreme Court · 1987
- Toner v. Lederle LaboratoriesIdaho Supreme Court · 1987
- Rivera Colón v. Díaz ArochoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 2005
71 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.