SCHAEFER v. READY

No. 25257.

3 P.3d 56 (2000)

134 Idaho 378

Scott SCHAEFER and Marla Schaefer, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross Respondents, v. Kelly L. READY and Tana Ready, husband and wife, Defendants-Respondents-Cross Appellants, and John T. Croslin and Edna Croslin, dba Seven Mile Lounge, Defendants.

Court of Appeals of Idaho.

Review Denied June 27, 2000.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Law Offices of Comstock & Bush, Boise, for appellant. David E. Comstock argued.

Marcus, Merrick & Montgomery, LLP, Boise, for respondent. Wilbur T. Nelson argued.


SCHWARTZMAN, Judge.

Scott and Marla Schaefer (the Schaefers) appeal from the district court's denial of their motion for new trial or, in the alternative, an additur. The Schaefers assert that the compensatory and punitive damages awarded by the jury were inadequate such that a new trial or an additur was warranted. The Schaefers also assert that errors in law occurred at trial, thus making a new trial necessary.

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases