Legal Opinion · Dissent

Golay v. Loomis

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided July 30, 1990No. 18303Published

1DissentBistline, Justice

WITH JUSTICE FOR NONE

I

The caption serves to express my dismay for a majority opinion which I did not ever expect to see emanate from this Court. In addition to being wholly unfair to Mr. Loomis, it also serves the unsalutary purpose of vitiating the admirable opinion of the Court of Appeals. That court was eminently correct in seeing that “the proper decision is so clear and compelling that any contrary determination would constitute, ipso facto, an abuse of discretion.” Citing In the Matter of the Estate of Kunzler, 109 Idaho 350, 355, 707 P.2d 461, 465 (Ct.App.1985). I wholly embrace the…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Esther HAYDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MT. PLEASANT, TEXAS, a Corporation, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1979
  2. Avondale on Hayden, Inc. v. HallIdaho Court of Appeals · 1983
  3. Julie Thomas v. Computax CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
  4. Bunn v. BunnIdaho Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Camp v. JiminezIdaho Court of Appeals · 1984

17 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