Other actions — Venue determined by residence — Exceptions.
In all other cases the action must be tried in the county in which the defendants, or some of them, reside, at the commencement of the action; or, if none of the defendants reside in the state, or, if residing in this state, the county in which they reside is unknown to the plaintiff, the same may be tried in any county which the plaintiff may designate in his complaint; and if the defendant is about to depart from the state, such action may be tried in any county where either of the parties reside, or service is had, subject, however, to the power of the court to change the place of trial, as provided in this code; provided, that all actions against life or fire insurance companies, suit or action may be commenced and tried in the county where the death occurred or the loss was sustained; and provided, further, that in all actions against any corporation organized under the laws of the state of Idaho, suit or action shall be commenced and tried in any county of this state where the defendant has its principal place of business or in the county in which the cause of action arose.
Notes of Decisions
Pintlar Corp. v. Bunker Ltd. P'ship, 786 P.2d 543 (Idaho 1990).
· cites it 26× “Idaho Code § 5-404 does not specifically address itself to circumstances similar to the instant action in which an individual and corporations with different residences are defendants in the same action.”
Skelton v. Spencer, 625 P.2d 1072 (Idaho 1981).
· cites it 8× “" I.C. § 5-404. Since Spencer's allegations that her residence was Twin Falls County are unopposed by Rigby & Thatcher, they must be accepted as true.”
Rudd v. Rudd, 666 P.2d 639 (Idaho 1983).
· cites it 4× “I.C. § 5-404, which governs changes of venue, provides that: “5-404.”
Corder v. Idaho Farmway, Inc., 986 P.2d 1019 (Idaho Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 6× “Under I.C. § 5-404, this action could be brought against Idaho Farmway, a corporation, in either the county where the corporation has its principal place of business or in a county where the cause of action arose.”
Ponderosa Paint Mfg., Inc. v. Yack, 870 P.2d 663 (Idaho Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “They asserted that venue was proper in Bannock County under I.C. § 5-404 1 because PACI, the sole Idaho resident defendant, had its principal place of business in Bannock County.”
Hayes v. Kingston, 96 P.3d 652 (Idaho 2004).
· cites it 12× “12(c), which the Court granted. Kingston’s notice of appeal was filed in accordance with the Court’s order, on July 10, 2003.”
Lohman v. Flynn, 78 P.3d 379 (Idaho 2003).
· cites it 2× “12(b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), 40(e)(1)(A) and I.C. § 5-404. Flynn specifically raised the issue of service in his special appearance by stating that he “was not personally served, nor was anyone in his residence of legal age served in person or otherwise.”
Burton v. Atomic Workers Fed. Credit Union, 803 P.2d 518 (Idaho 1990).
· cites it 4× “The Credit Union, in its answer to the plaintiff's complaint, asserted that under I.C. § 5-404 Bannock County was an improper venue for the action because the defendant corporation's principal place of business, and the county in which the cause of action arose, both were in…”
Banning v. Minidoka Irrigation Dist., 406 P.2d 802 (Idaho 1965).
· cites it 8× “§ 5-404, in part, provides: “In all other cases the action must be tried in the county in which the defendants, or some of them, reside, at the commencement of the action; * * and provided, further, that in all actions against any corporation organized under the laws of the…”
Clark v. Atwood, 730 P.2d 1035 (Idaho Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Eventually, Clark asked the court for a ruling. The motions were argued before the magistrate on July 29, 1985, some fifteen months after they had been filed.”
Jarman v. Hale, 842 P.2d 288 (Idaho Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “The district court, however, conclud *963 ed that venue was consistent with I.C. § 5-404 and that Hale had made no showing that he would be prejudiced in the selection of jurors to hear this case in Bannock County.”
Clemens v. Kinsley, 239 P.2d 266 (Idaho 1951).
“Whether, subsequently to its decree, the mother and child being found within the ■state, the divorce action could have been revived to determine the custody of the child by supplemental proceedings, we do not decide. So far as venue is concerned, the action was properly filed in…”
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.