Legal Opinion

Chenery v. Agri-Lines Corp.

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided October 6, 1988No. 16517PublishedCited by 45 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SHEPARD, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment and orders denying a motion for a new trial, and a cross-appeal from orders denying pre-judgment interest, costs, and attorney fees. We affirm.

In brief, Layne Pump manufactured, sold and installed a deep-well turbine irrigation pump on property owned by Chenery and leased by the Spencers. Six years later Agri-Lines was employed by the Spencers to repair the pump. In the repair process a portion of the pump fractured, causing much of the mechanism to drop to the bottom of the well.

Chenery and the Spencers brought action against…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. United States v. Munsey Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Quick v. CraneIdaho Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Dinneen v. FinchIdaho Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Anderson v. EthingtonIdaho Supreme Court · 1982
  5. C. E. Bradshaw, Sr. v. Vic ThompsonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1972

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by45 opinions

  1. State, Department of Human Services Ex Rel. Palmer v. Unisys Corp.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2001
  2. Sherwood v. CarterIdaho Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Spence v. HowellIdaho Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Griggs v. NashIdaho Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Watson v. Navistar International Transportation Corp.Idaho Supreme Court · 1992

40 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