Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Boundary Backpackers v. Boundary County

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided March 18, 1996No. 21287Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSchroeder, Justice

I concur in that portion of the Court’s opinion which reverses the award of attorney fees. I dissent from the Court’s determination that one of the plaintiffs has standing and the determination that this case is ripe for determination.

I

CONSTRUCTION OF IDAHO’S UNIFORM DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT

The Declaratory Judgment Act is remedial in nature. Its purpose is to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status and other legal relations, and is to be liberally construed. I.C. § 10-1212; Idaho Mut. Benefit Ass’n v. Robison, 65 Idaho 793, 154 P.2d 156 (1944); State ex…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. Allen v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  5. Regional Rail Reorganization Act CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974

24 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