Legal Opinion
Kelso v. Lance
Idaho Supreme Court
Decided March 3, 2000No. 25413PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KIDWELL, Justice.
Plaintiff attorneys represented the Industrial Special Indemnity Fund (ISIF) pursuant to a contract with the Attorney General’s Office. When these attorneys filed a notice of tort claim on behalf of private clients against the State Insurance Fund (SIF), the Attorney General characterized it as a conflict of interest. When the attorneys refused to choose between representing their private clients and the ISIF, the Attorney General withdrew their appointments as special deputy attorneys general. The district court granted summary judgment to the Attorney General. We affirm.
I
FAC…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Idaho Water Resource Board v. KramerIdaho Supreme Court · 1976
- Senske v. Fairmont & Waseca Canning Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
- Board of County Commissioners v. Idaho Health Facilities AuthorityIdaho Supreme Court · 1975
- State Ex Rel. Williams v. MusgraveIdaho Supreme Court · 1962
- Scona, Inc. v. Green Willow TrustIdaho Supreme Court · 1999
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Howard v. Oregon Mutual InsuranceIdaho Supreme Court · 2002
- Anderson v. SpaldingIdaho Supreme Court · 2002
- Hoffer v. CallisterIdaho Supreme Court · 2002
- Plummer v. City of FruitlandIdaho Supreme Court · 2004
- State Ex Rel. Kempthorne v. Blaine CountyIdaho Supreme Court · 2003
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.