Ransom v. Topaz

37 Citing cases

  1. Farr West Investments v. Topaz Marketing L.P.

    148 Idaho 272 (Idaho 2009)   Cited 10 times
    Listing price "is not substantial and competent evidence of [property's] fair market value."

    Farr West Investments (Farr West) and Vilarr Ransom (Ransom) filed separate law-suits against Topaz Marketing, L.P., and Dennis Lower (collectively Lower) to recover damages for injury to real property caused when Lower constructed a road on an easement crossing Farr West's property. The facts are set forth in more detail in Ransom v. Topaz Marketing, L.P., 143 Idaho 641, 152 P.3d 2 (2006), the first appeal in this case. The lawsuits were joined for trial. The law-suit filed by Ransom was resolved through mediation, and the lawsuit filed by Farr West was tried to the district court without a jury.

  2. Whitham v. Creamer

    525 P.3d 746 (Idaho 2023)   Cited 2 times

    Creamer relies on this Court's decision in Ransom v. Topaz Marketing, L.P. for his argument that he is entitled to the cost of repair and injunctive relief. 143 Idaho 641, 152 P.3d 2 (2006).

  3. Greenfield Family Tr. v. Olive Fountain Land Co.

    516 P.3d 96 (Idaho 2022)   Cited 2 times

    Green River Ranches, LLC v. Silva Land Co., LLC , 162 Idaho 385, 389, 397 P.3d 1144, 1148 (2017). See also Radford v. Van Orden , 168 Idaho 287, 298, 483 P.3d 344, 355 (2021), as amended (Mar. 22, 2021); Mortensen v. Berian , 163 Idaho 47, 50, 408 P.3d 45, 48 (2017) ; Ransom v. Topaz Mktg., L.P. , 143 Idaho 641, 643, 152 P.3d 2, 4 (2006). Even Weitz specifies that "[t]he findings of the trial court on the question of damages will not be set aside when based upon substantial and competent evidence."

  4. Vreeken v. Lockwood Engineering, B.V

    148 Idaho 89 (Idaho 2009)   Cited 33 times
    In Vreeken, the appellants argued that the district court erred in its grant of summary judgment even though they wholly failed to contest summary judgment below.

    These findings of fact will not be set aside unless the trial court's findings are clearly erroneous. Ransom v. Topaz Mktg., L.P., 143 Idaho 641, 643, 152 P.3d 2, 4 (2006). "If the trial court based its findings on substantial evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting, this Court will not overturn those findings on appeal."

  5. Judy Family Trust v. United States

    Case No. 4:11-CV-00644-EJL (D. Idaho Sep. 5, 2013)

    The Court finds it need not decide if the trespass was a continuing trespass at this time as the damages for a continuing trespass are subsumed within common law trespass remedies. Ransom v. Topaz Marketing, L.P., 152 P.3d 2, 6 (Idaho 2006) The Court finds damages beyond the fair market value or diminution in value are allowed under Idaho case law.

  6. Big Wood Ranch, LLC v. Water United Statesers' Ass'n of the Broadford Slough

    345 P.3d 1015 (Idaho 2015)

    This Court will not set aside a trial court's findings of fact unless the findings are clearly erroneous. Ransom v. Topaz Mktg., L.P., 143 Idaho 641, 643, 152 P.3d 2, 4 (2006); I.R.C.P. 52(a). If the trial court based its findings on substantial evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting, this Court will not overturn those findings on appeal. Benninger, 142 Idaho at 489, 129 P.3d at 1238. Additionally, this Court will not substitute its view of the facts for that of the trial court.

  7. Big Wood Ranch, LLC v. Water Users' Ass'n. of Broadford Slough

    158 Idaho 225 (Idaho 2015)   Cited 7 times

    This Court will not set aside a trial court's findings of fact unless the findings are clearly erroneous. Ransom v. Topaz Mktg., L.P., 143 Idaho 641, 643, 152 P.3d 2, 4 (2006) ; I.R.C.P. 52(a). If the trial court based its findings on substantial evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting, this Court will not overturn those findings on appeal.

  8. Stibal v. Fano

    157 Idaho 428 (Idaho 2014)   Cited 7 times

    This Court will not set aside a trial court's findings of fact unless the findings are clearly erroneous. Ransom v. Topaz Mktg., L.P., 143 Idaho 641, 643, 152 P.3d 2, 4 (2006) ; I.R.C.P. 52(a). If the trial court based its findings on substantial evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting, this Court will not overturn those findings on appeal.

  9. Bettwieser v. N.Y. Irrigation Dist.

    297 P.3d 1134 (Idaho 2013)   Cited 24 times
    Noting that claims of error are waived when Appellant fails to support citations with argument related to the relevance or application of the citations

    “This Court will not set aside a trial court's findings of fact unless the findings are clearly erroneous.” Id. (citing Ransom v. Topaz Mktg., L.P., 143 Idaho 641, 643, 152 P.3d 2, 4 (2006); I.R.C.P. 52(a)). Therefore, if the trial court's findings are based upon “substantial evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting,” those findings will not be overturned on appeal.

  10. Bettwieser v. N.Y. Irrigation Dist.

    154 Idaho 317 (Idaho 2013)   Cited 27 times

    Id. (citing Rowley v. Fuhrman, 133 Idaho 105, 107, 982 P.2d 940, 942 (1999) ). "This Court will not set aside a trial court's findings of fact unless the findings are clearly erroneous." Id. (citing Ransom v. Topaz Mktg., L.P., 143 Idaho 641, 643, 152 P.3d 2, 4 (2006) ; I.R.C.P. 52(a) ). Therefore, if the trial court's findings are based upon "substantial evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting," those findings will not be overturned on appeal.