State v. Shama Resources Ltd. Partnership

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the state need not make a showing of scienter under Idaho Code §§ 30-1403(2) and (3) [cf. NRS 90.570(2) and (3)]
• holding that affidavits submitted in response to summary judgment were properly rejected because they were not based on personal knowledge, were insufficient and conelusory in nature, and contained statements of hearsay that would not be admissible into evidence
• noting that the Idaho equivalent of HRS §§ 485-25(a)(2) and (a)(3) are “virtually identical” to sections 17(a)(2) and (a)(3) and holding that a showing of scienter is not required for agency enforcement, based on plain language analysis and Aaron
• noting that the Idaho equivalent of HRS §§ 485-25(a)(2) and (a)(3) are \virtually identical\ to sections 17(a)(2) and (a)(3) and holding that a showing of scienter is not required for agency enforcement, based on plain language analysis and Aaron
• intent or scienter not required to establish fraud under Idaho Code Sections 30-1403(2) and (3), which are virtually identical to Sections 17(a)(2) and (3)
• Once the party moving for summary judgment establishes the absence of a genuine issue, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to make a showing of the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).