ADA COUNTY HIGH. DIST. v. Acarrequi (1983)
green
· 245 citation events
across 5 courts.
Showing the 20 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198320042026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
State Ex Rel. Ohman v. Ivan H. Talbot Family Trust (1991)
Acarrequi, 105 Idaho at 879-80 , 673 P.2d at 1073-74 (emphasis in original and added).
emphasis in original and added
green
Dept of Transportation v. HJ Grathol (2015)
Highway Dist. v. Acarrequi, 105 Idaho 873, 877 , 673 P.2d 1067, 1071 (1983).
Ada County Highway District v. Acarrequi, 105 Idaho 873, 874-875 , 673 P.2d 1067, 1068 (1983) (“The allowance of amendment to pleadings is a matter not to be disturbed absent a showing of clear error____ A court may, in its discretion, allow such amendment, unless to do so would deprive the complaining party of some substantial right.”); Jones v. Watson, 98 Idaho 606, 610 , 570 P.2d 284, 289 (1977) (“As this case had been set for trial at the time of defendant’s attempt to a…
“The allowance of amendment to pleadings is a matter not to be disturbed absent a showing of clear error____ A court may, in its discretion, allow such amendment, unless to do so would deprive the complaining party of some substantial right.”
By and Through Fairbanks v. Acarrequi, 105 Idaho 873, 877 , 673 P.2d 1067, 1071 (1983).
By and Through Fairbanks v. Acarrequi, 105 Idaho 873, 877 , 673 P.2d 1067, 1071 (1983).
green
Mesenbrink Lunber v. Lighty SUBSTITUTE (2014)
Highway Dist. v. Acarrequi, 105 Idaho 873, 875 , 673 P.2d 1067, 1069 (1983) (holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing amendment of the respondent’s memorandum of costs to include attorney fees where the record disclosed no harm or prejudice resulting to the appellant from the amendment).
holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing amendment of the respondent’s memorandum of costs to include attorney fees where the record disclosed no harm or prejudice resulting to the appellant from the amendment
green
Jeff Marmor v. Patricia Marmor (2014)
Highway Dist. v. Acarrequi, 105 Idaho 873, 874-75 , 673 P.2d 1067, 1068-69 (1983), which the Bedke opinion cites. 9 Memorandum that were incurred after submission of Patricia’s Original Memorandum and prior to entry of the district court’s April 25 judgment is reversed.
green
Marmor v. Marmor (2014)
Highway Dist. v. Acarrequi, 105 Idaho 873, 874-75 , 673 P.2d 1067, 1068-69 (1983), which the Bedke opinion cites. 9 Memorandum that were incurred after submission of Patricia’s Original Memorandum and prior to entry of the district court’s April 25 judgment is reversed.
green
Mesenbrink Lunber v. Lighty (2014)
Highway Dist. v. Acarrequi, 105 Idaho 873, 875 , 673 P.2d 1067, 1069 (1983) (holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing amendment of the respondent’s memorandum of costs to include attorney fees where the record disclosed no harm or prejudice resulting to the appellant from the amendment).
holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing amendment of the respondent’s memorandum of costs to include attorney fees where the record disclosed no harm or prejudice resulting to the appellant from the amendment
green
Telford Lands LLC v. Cain (2013)
By and Through Fairbanks v. Acarrequi, 105 Idaho 873, 876-77 , 673 P.2d 1067, 1070-71 (1983).
green
Alpine Village Co. v. City of McCall (2013)
By and Through Fairbanks v. Acarrequi, 105 Idaho 873, 874 , 673 P.2d 1067, 1068 (1983).
green
In Re SRBA (2010)
By and Through Fairbanks v. Acarrequi, 105 Idaho 873, 874-75 , 673 P.2d 1067, 1068-69 (1983) (holding that trial court did not err in allowing amendment of party's costs bill to include attorney fees after expiration of deadline in I.R.C.P. 54(d)(5) where no harm or prejudice resulted to the other party). 2.
holding that trial court did not err in allowing amendment of party's costs bill to include attorney fees after expiration of deadline in I.R.C.P. 54(d)(5) where no harm or prejudice resulted to the other party
By and Through Fairbanks v. Acarrequi, 105 Idaho 873, 874-75 , 673 P.2d 1067, 1068-69 (1983) (holding that trial court did not err in allowing amendment of party’s costs bill to include attorney fees after expiration of deadline in I.R.C.P. 54(d)(5) where no harm or prejudice resulted to the other party). 2.
holding that trial court did not err in allowing amendment of party’s costs bill to include attorney fees after expiration of deadline in I.R.C.P. 54(d)(5) where no harm or prejudice resulted to the other party
green
Bedke v. CITY OF OAKLEY (2010)
By and Through Fairbanks v. Acarrequi, 105 Idaho 873, 874-75 , 673 P.2d 1067, 1068-69 (1983) (holding that trial court did not err in allowing amendment of party's costs bill to include attorney fees after expiration of deadline in I.R.C.P. 54(d)(5) where no harm or prejudice resulted to the other party). 2.
holding that trial court did not err in allowing amendment of party's costs bill to include attorney fees after expiration of deadline in I.R.C.P. 54(d)(5) where no harm or prejudice resulted to the other party
green
Ada County Highway District v. Sharp (2001)
Smith v. Jardine, 130 Idaho 318, 320 , 940 P.2d 1137, 1139 (1995), quoting Ada County Highway District v. Acarrequi, 105 Idaho 873, 877 , 673 P.2d 1067, 1071 (1983).
By and Through Fairbanks v. Acarrequi, 105 Idaho 873 , 673 P.2d 1067, 1069 (1983) (absent statutory provision, condemnee is not entitled to reimbursement for counsel fees); City of Luna Pier v. Lake Erie Landowners, 175 Mich.App. 430 , 438 N.W.2d 636, 637 (1989) (attorney’s fees may not be awarded unless specifically authorized by statute or court rule); Freeborn County v. Bryson, 294 N.W.2d 851, 852 (Minn.1980) (attorney’s fees are allowed in eminent domain proceedings only…
absent statutory provision, condemnee is not entitled to reimbursement for counsel fees
green
Nalen v. Jenkins (1988)
Decker v. Homeguard Systems, supra. Similarly, our Supreme Court has cautioned that, in awarding attorney fees under the Rule 54(e)(3) criteria, a trial court “should not automatically adopt any contingent fee or contractual arrangement, but rather the fee awarded may be more or less than that provided in the lawyer-client contract.” Ada County Highway District v. Acarrequi, supra, 105 Idaho at 878, 673 P.2d at 1072 .
green
BECO Construction Co. v. J-U-B Engineers Inc. (2010)
See Ada County Highway Dist. v. Acarrequi, 105 Idaho 873, 874-75 , 673 P.2d 1067, 1068-69 (1983); Medrano v. Neibaur, 136 Idaho 767, 770 , 40 P.3d 125, 128 (2002) (Eismann, J., dissenting).
green
Jackson v. Speed (1997)
See Rice v. Multimedia, Inc., 318 S.C. 95 , 456 S.E.2d 381 (1995) (this Court affirmed a trial court’s award of an amount greater than that due the plaintiffs attorney under a contingency fee contract); Columbia (S.C.) Teachers Federal Credit Union v. Newsome, 303 S.C. 162 , 399 S.E.2d 444 (Ct.App.1990) (affirming an award of attorney’s fees based upon an hourly rate even though agreement with client was contingency-based); see also Ada County Highway District v. Acarrequi, …
the court should not automatically adopt the contingent fee or contractual arrangement; instead, the fee awarded may be more or less than that provided by the lawyer-client contract
green
Allison v. John M. Biggs, Inc. (1992)
See Ada County Highway Dist. v. Acarrequi, 105 Idaho 873 , 673 P.2d 1067 (1983); Wheeler v. McIntyre, 100 Idaho 286 , 596 P.2d 798 (1979).