Flood v. Katz

7 Citing cases

  1. Waller v. State

    146 Idaho 234 (Idaho 2008)   Cited 35 times
    In Waller, the defendant had a default judgment entered against him in a state court action which established he was the father of a child and required to pay child support.

    Ticor Title Co., 144 Idaho at 122, 157 P.3d at 616 (citing Foster v. City of St. Anthony, 122 Idaho 883, 890, 841 P.2d 413, 420 (1992)). A trial court's decision whether to grant relief pursuant to I.R.C.P. 60(b) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Flood v. Katz, 143 Idaho 454, 456-57, 147 P.3d 86, 88-89 (2006). The decision will be upheld if it appears that the trial court (1) correctly perceived the issue as discretionary, (2) acted within the boundaries of its discretion and consistent with the applicable legal standards, and (3) reached its determination through an exercise of reason.

  2. Police v. Cassia

    144 Idaho 60 (Idaho 2007)   Cited 21 times

    The decision will be upheld if it appears that the trial court (1) correctly perceived the issue as discretionary, (2) acted within the boundaries of its discretion and consistent with the applicable legal standards, and (3) reached its determination through an exercise of reason. Flood v. Katz, 143 Idaho 454, 456-57, 147 P.3d 86, 88-89 (2006). The applicable legal standard is set forth in I.R.C.P. 60(b), which allows a default judgment to be set aside where it resulted from, inter alia, excusable neglect or mistake of fact. A determination under Rule 60(b) turns largely on questions of fact to be determined by the trial court, whose factual findings will be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous. Nevertheless, because judgments by default are not favored, relief should be granted in doubtful cases in order to decide the case on the merits.

  3. Nunez v. Johnson

    163 Idaho 692 (Idaho Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 4 times

    The decision will be upheld if it appears that the trial court (1) correctly perceived the issue as discretionary, (2) acted within the boundaries of its discretion and consistent with the applicable legal standards, and (3) reached its determination through an exercise of reason. Flood v. Katz , 143 Idaho 454, 456-57, 147 P.3d 86, 88-89 (2006).Where a default or default judgment is challenged as void under I.R.C.P. 60(b)(4), we conduct de novo review.

  4. Secured Inv. Corp v. Myers Exec. Bldg., LLC

    162 Idaho 105 (Idaho Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 2 times
    In Secured Inv. Corp. v. Myers Exec. Bldg., LLC, 162 Idaho 105, 394 P.3d 807 (2016), the plaintiff Wyoming corporation, Secured, filed a complaint in Idaho against Myers, a Washington LLC. 162 Idaho at 108, 394 P.3d at 810.

    The decision will be upheld if it appears that the trial court (1) correctly perceived the issue as discretionary, (2) acted within the boundaries of its discretion and consistent with the applicable legal standards, and (3) reached its determination through an exercise of reason. Flood v. Katz , 143 Idaho 454, 456–57, 147 P.3d 86, 88–89 (2006). Where a default or default judgment is challenged as void under I.R.C.P. 60(b)(4), we conduct de novo review.

  5. Secured Inv. Corp v. Myers Exec. Bldg., LLC

    Docket No. 43402 (Idaho Ct. App. Jun. 24, 2016)

    The decision will be upheld if it appears that the trial court (1) correctly perceived the issue as discretionary, (2) acted within the boundaries of its discretion and consistent with the applicable legal standards, and (3) reached its determination through an exercise of reason. Flood v. Katz, 143 Idaho 454, 456-57, 147 P.3d 86, 88-89 (2006). Where a default or default judgment is challenged as void under I.R.C.P. 60(b)(4), we conduct de novo review.

  6. Secured Inv. Corp v. Myers Exec. Bldg., LLC

    Docket No. 43402 (Idaho Ct. App. Jun. 22, 2016)

    The decision will be upheld if it appears that the trial court (1) correctly perceived the issue as discretionary, (2) acted within the boundaries of its discretion and consistent with the applicable legal standards, and (3) reached its determination through an exercise of reason. Flood v. Katz, 143 Idaho 454, 456-57, 147 P.3d 86, 88-89 (2006). Where a default or default judgment is challenged as void under I.R.C.P. 60(b)(4), we conduct de novo review.

  7. Secured Inv. Corp v. Myers Exec. Bldg., LLC

    Docket No. 43402 (Idaho Ct. App. Jun. 15, 2016)

    The decision will be upheld if it appears that the trial court (1) correctly perceived the issue as discretionary, (2) acted within the boundaries of its discretion and consistent with the applicable legal standards, and (3) reached its determination through an exercise of reason. Flood v. Katz, 143 Idaho 454, 456-57, 147 P.3d 86, 88-89 (2006). Where a default or default judgment is challenged as void under I.R.C.P. 60(b)(4), we conduct de novo review.