Idaho Supreme Court· 9/11/2002

Camp v. East Fork Ditch Co., Ltd.

Citations

55 P.3d 304
137 Idaho 850
2002 Ida. LEXIS 145

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

explaining that a final judgment is a separate document that states on its face the relief granted or denied
stating that a prescription claimant must show “open, notorious, continuous, and uninterrupted use, under a claim of right and with the knowledge of the owner of the servient tenement” for the prescriptive period
considering late motion for summary judgment, noting that I.R.C.P. 16(b)(6) authorizes modification of scheduling order modified upon showing of good cause
noting the distinction between civil and criminal contempt is important because of the federal constitutional rights the Supreme Court has held are applicable in nonsummary criminal contempt proceedings
“Under Idaho law, however, the court in a contempt proceeding does not have the authority to order the contemnor to pay damages to the complainant”
“The right to appeal to this Court as a matter of right is governed by the Idaho Appellate Rules.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Eismann, Kidwell, Schroeder, Trout, Walters

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

76 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.