Budell v. Todd, 99039
| Decision Date | 17 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 99039,99039 |
| Citation | 105 Idaho 2,665 P.2d 701 |
| Parties | Ethel Marie BUDELL, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Arthur Lewis TODD and Jane Doe I, husband and wife, Defendants-Petitioners. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
M. Michael Sasser, of Hamlin & Sasser, Boise, for defendants-petitioners.
Bradley S. Ford, P.A., Nampa, for plaintiff-respondent.
The defendant in this action has filed a motion to appeal by certification from an interlocutory order, namely an order denying a motion for summary judgment, under Rule 12 of the Idaho Appellate Rules.
I.A.R. 12 was adopted by the Court in 1977 and implemented a procedure similar to an appeal from an interlocutory order from a federal district court to a court of appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure for the United States Courts of Appeals. Under the Idaho rule a party to an action in a district court or a proceeding in an administrative agency may seek permission to appeal from an interlocutory order which is not otherwise appealable as a matter of right under I.A.R. 11. The basic criteria for consideration of such an appeal by certification from an interlocutory order under Rule 12 is that the order "involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial grounds for difference of opinion," and that an immediate appeal from the order "may materially advance the orderly resolution of the litigation ...." The rule requires a party to first make application to the district court or administrative agency for its advisory ruling, and thereafter the party files a motion with the Supreme Court requesting it to accept the appeal from the interlocutory order. The defendant in this case properly followed the procedures set forth in the rule and did obtain an order of the district court recommending the appeal by certification.
The legal issue that would be raised by an appeal by certification from the order denying the motion for summary judgment is whether a prior judgment in favor of the defendant in a small claim action for property damage to a vehicle in an accident bars this action for personal injury under the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the single cause of action rule. The defendant argues that this issue is a controlling question of law inasmuch as if these doctrines are applied to this factual situation, the motion for summary judgment for the defendant would be granted thereby terminating the case. While no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Reg'l Med. Ctr.
...case and does not intend by the rule to broaden the appeals which may be taken as a matter of right under I.A.R. 11. Budell v. Todd, 105 Idaho 2, 4, 665 P.2d 701, 703 (1983). In this case, the order of the district court involved a matter of first impression, the issues raised were controll......
-
Verity v. U.S. Today, of Gannett Satellite Info. Network, LLC
...or legal questions of first impression are involved.’ " Aardema , 147 Idaho at 789, 215 P.3d at 509 (quoting Budell v. Todd , 105 Idaho 2, 4, 665 P.2d 701, 703 (1983) (per curiam) ). Because of the "unusual posture" presented by a permissive appeal under Rule 12, this Court is "constrained ......
-
Hall v. State
...impression are involved." Aardema v. U.S. Dairy Sys., Inc., 147 Idaho 785, 789, 215 P.3d 505, 509 (2009) (quoting Budell v. Todd, 105 Idaho 2, 4, 665 P.2d 701, 703 (1983) ). Appeals brought under I.A.R. 12 are poised in an "unusual posture." Id. (quoting Winn v. Frasher, 116 Idaho 500, 501,......
-
Hall v. State
...impression are involved." Aardema v. U.S. Dairy Sys., Inc., 147 Idaho 785, 789, 215 P.3d 505, 509 (2009) (quoting Budell v. Todd, 105 Idaho 2, 4, 665 P.2d 701, 703 (1983)). Appeals brought under I.A.R. 12 are poised in an "unusual posture." Id. (quoting Winn v. Frasher, 116 Idaho 500, 501, ......