Appeal to lawyer magistrate.
If either party is dissatisfied, he may, within thirty (30) days from the entry of said judgment against him, appeal to a lawyer magistrate other than the magistrate who entered said judgment; and if the final judgment is rendered against him by such lawyer magistrate, then he shall pay, in addition to any judgment rendered in the magistrate’s division, an attorney’s fee to the prevailing party in the sum of twenty-five dollars ($25.00), provided, however, that appeals from such small claims department shall be allowed only in such cases as appeals would be allowed if the action were instituted in the magistrate’s division as is now provided, and further provided that the appeal shall be heard in the county wherein the original small claim was filed. A fee of twenty dollars ($20.00) shall be paid by the party taking the appeal, which shall be paid to the county treasurer who shall, within fifteen (15) days after the end of the month, pay such fees to the state treasurer for deposit into the court technology fund.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases, 1982–2014 · leading case:
Huff v. Uhl, 647 P.2d 730 (Idaho 1982).
Huff v. Uhl, 647 P.2d 730 (Idaho 1982).
· cites it 10× “81(q) merely restates the statutory provision for the award of attorney fees in small claims court found in I.C. § 1-2311. I.C. § 1-2311, enacted in 1969, allows the “prevailing party” on appeal of a small claims decision to the district court an award of $25 for attorney fees.”
Frizzell v. Swafford, 663 P.2d 1125 (Idaho 1983).
· cites it 16× “81( l ) and I.C. §§ 1-2311 2313, which condition a right to appeal on payment of fees and a bond, were an unconstitutional taking of property without due process.”
Gilbert v. Moore, 697 P.2d 1179 (Idaho 1985).
· cites it 6× “fees of $25 as provided for by I.C. § 1-2311. Defendants on appeal to this Court raise five issues: (1) Whether Mr.”
Utah Power & Light Co. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 685 P.2d 276 (Idaho 1984).
· cites it 4× “81(1) and I.C. §§ 1-2311 through -2313, which condition a right to appeal on payment of fees and a bond, were an unconstitutional taking of property without due process.”
Smethers v. Wilson, 676 P.2d 734 (Idaho Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 8× “” I.C. §1-2311. Smethers argues that the time for filing an appeal began to run from the date on which the magistrate signed the judgment.”
Williams v. Christiansen, 707 P.2d 504 (Idaho Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 4× “I.C. § 1-2311; Smethers v. Wilson, 106 Idaho 159 , 676 P.”
Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Southfork Lumber Co., 845 P.2d 564 (Idaho 1993).
· cites it 2× “Idaho Code §§ 1-2311 ; 6-324; 6-918A; 6-1703; 12-117; 12-120; 12-121; 12-122; 12-123; 15-3-720; 22-1104; 22-1702; 22-2211; 22-3315; 22-3423; 26-1825; 26-2806; 27-504; 28-3-510A; 28-3-510C; 28^13-311; 28-43-312; 28-45-201; 30-1-5; 30-1446; 32-704; 36-1510; 39-4127; 39-4414;…”
Knopp v. Nelson, 775 P.2d 657 (Idaho Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Knopp appealed within the magistrate division, as allowed by I.C. § 1-2311, resulting in a trial de novo before another magistrate.”
Skogerson v. McConnell, 664 P.2d 770 (Idaho 1983).
· cites it 14× “Unable because of indigency to post the cash appeal bonds required by I.C. §§ 1-2311 and -2312 and I.R.C.P. 81(7), they moved the district court for an order waiving prepayment of fees, costs and security pursuant to I.”
Laurel Evans v. Walter Burnham (Idaho Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “I.C. §§ 1-2311 and 2312. Importantly, an appeal to the magistrate court from small claims is decided in a trial de novo.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.