Idaho Supreme Court
Michael T. Ashby, Linda Ashby, James C. Collyer, Teresa Collyer, Kevin Davis, Philena Davis, Richard Funkhouser…
May 4, 1990117 Idaho 684
Summary
The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ action with prejudice as a discovery sanction and awarded attorney’s fees and costs to the respondents, finding the sanction appropriate and not an abuse of discretion.
Holding
- Did the trial court abuse its discretion in dismissing the action with prejudice as a discovery sanction?. No, the dismissal was proper and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
- Did the trial court fail to consider lesser sanctions before dismissing the action?. No, the trial court did consider and impose lesser sanctions, including costs, attorney’s fees, and a warning of dismissal.
- Are attorney’s fees under I.A.R. 41 appropriate in this case?. Yes, attorney’s fees are proper because the appeal was frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation.
Docket No. 17218
Cited by
- Paul Louis Peterson and Barbara Martin Peterson, Husband and Wife v. Sarah Elizabeth McCawley and John Doe McCawley…
- Ron Adams and Tamara Kugler Adams, Husband and Wife v. Rex Reed, Defendant-Respondent
- Albert E. Blaser, Plaintiff-Appellant v. J. Patrick Riceci, Conservator of the Estate of Rozella Nottingham, And…
- Ashby v. W. Council, Lumber Production
- Jose Manuel Carrillo, as an Individual and as Natural Parent and Guardian of Nayeli Carrillo, a Minor Child; As…
- Jose Manuel Carrillo v. Boise Tire Co., Inc.
- State of Idaho, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross Respondent v. Robert Anderson, Defendant-Respondent-Cross Appellant
- Curtis “jay” Johnson, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Mike McPhee and Jcav, LLC, Defendants-Respondents