Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Shurtliff v. Northwest Pools, Inc.

Idaho Court of Appeals

Decided May 2, 1991No. 18596Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

FULLER, Judge Pro Tern.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur in all parts of the foregoing opinion, except parts IV and V and that part of VI restating the conclusions reached in those parts.

In my view, the magistrate abused his discretion when he failed to apportion the attorney fees, and when the magistrate considered the parties’ pretrial negotiations as a factor in awarding attorney fees. The magistrate’s award permits Northwest to recover all of its fees for defending both the contract claim and the Consumer Protection Act claim, even though Northwest did not prevail on…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Craft Wall of Idaho, Inc. v. StonebrakerIdaho Court of Appeals · 1985
  2. Etcheverry Sheep Co. v. J.R. Simplot Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Severson v. HermannIdaho Supreme Court · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API