Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mickelsen Construction, Inc. v. Horrocks

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided March 29, 2013No. 38634-2011Published

1DissentJ. Jones, Justice

I dissent from the Court’s opinion for two reasons: In my estimation the check made payable by the Respondents to Mickelsen Construction (Mickelsen) is a sufficient writing to satisfy I.C. § 9-505, and, as the district court appears to have concluded, the Complaint was adequate to invoke the provisions of I.C. § 9-506. I have a concern that the practicing bar may interpret our holding as stepping back to a degree from our previous decisions on notice pleading. And, while I strongly believe that I.R.C.P. 56 is a valuable tool for weeding out non-meritorious cases, it appears to me that there…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Carrillo v. BOISE TIRE CO., INC.Idaho Supreme Court · 2012
  2. Gibson v. Ada County Sheriff's DepartmentIdaho Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Brown v. City of PocatelloIdaho Supreme Court · 2010
  4. Mortensen v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 2010
  5. Youngblood v. HigbeeIdaho Supreme Court · 2008

2 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