Marty v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• “Whether the landowners are entitled to compensation for inverse condemnation will first depend on whether their property was permanently damaged.”
• trial court did not abuse its discretion by striking affidavit where affiant was not an expert in hydrology and thus not qualified to render an opinion as to the anticipated frequency of flooding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Lanham v. Idaho Power Co.
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1997-08-07· cited 48×
• Sammis v. Magnetek, Inc.
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1997-06-05· cited 35×
• Covington v. Jefferson County
  Idaho Supreme Court· 2002-08-16· cited 12×

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Sun Valley Shopping Center, Inc. v. Idaho Power Co.
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1991-01-02· cited 492×
• Petricevich v. Salmon River Canal Company
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1969-03-25· cited 101×
• Garrett Freightlines, Inc. v. Bannock Paving Co.
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1987-04-08· cited 48×
• State v. Winn
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1992-03-26· cited 38×
• State v. Crea
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1991-03-01· cited 35×
• IHC Hospitals, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1985-02-04· cited 19×
• Jerome Thriftway Drug, Inc. v. Winslow
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1986-04-02· cited 17×
• Albert Pinkham, Sr. Cyrus Wilkinson Connie Allen Moore Francis Allen v. Lewiston Orchards Irrigation District, and United States of America
  Ninth Circuit· 1988-11-29· cited 9×
• Turcotte v. State
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1962-07-23· cited 9×
• Shaw v. City of Rupert
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1984-05-16· cited 8×
• Marty v. State
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1989-12-21· cited 7×