Idaho Power Co. v. Cogeneration, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming decision to reopen case after close of evidence based on confusion surrounding evidence already in record before remand
• affirming decision to reopen case after close of evidence based on confusion surrounding evidence already in record before remand
• In construing a written instrument, the Court must “consider it as whole and give meaning to all provisions of the writing to the extent possible.”
• plaintiff bears the burden of proving the existence and breach of the contract
• “Absent compliance with the [Idaho Appellate Rules], this Court will not search the record for error. Error is never presumed on appeal and the burden of showing it is on the party asserting it.”
• “Absent compliance with the [Idaho Appellate Rules], this Court will not search the record for error. Error is never presumed on appeal and the burden of showing it is on the party asserting it.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).