David Samples v. Dr. Ray W. Hanson

I respectfully dissent. Today the Court has ignored the approach we have traditionally taken to the review of discretionary decisions and usurped the discretionary powers of the trial court. In doing so, I believe that the Court has repeated the error that it committed four years ago in Nield v. Pocatello Health Servs., Inc., 156 Idaho 802, 852, 332 P.3d 714, 764 (2014). Then, I summarized my perception of the Court’s decision as follows:

The majority correctly states and applies our rule that the determination of the admissibility of evidence offered “in support of or in opposition to a…