Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Rungee v. Allied Van Lines, Inc.

92 Idaho 718 (Idaho 1968)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Rungee v. Allied Van Lines, Inc.

29 Citing cases

  1. Barber v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    129 Idaho 677 (Idaho 1997)   Cited 7 times
    Following Rungee, and reasoning under the same insurance statute considered in Rungee that Washington law applied to determine the issue of attorney fees

    Procedural law and rules do not generally implicate a substantive choice of law. Rungee v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 92 Idaho 718, 722, 449 P.2d 378, 382 (1968). This language indicates that the clause is meant as a choice of forum clause, not a choice of law clause.

  2. BTA v. WA CAPITAL JOINT MASTER TRUST MTG. INCOME FUND

    CASE NO. 03-141-S-MHW (D. Idaho Dec. 10, 2007)

    Barber v. State Farm Mut. Ins., 931 P.2d, 1195, 1199 (Idaho 1997). See also Grover v. Isom, 53 P.3d 821 (Idaho 2002); Rungee v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 449 P.2d 378 (Idaho 1968); DeMeyer v. Maxwell, 647 P.2d 783 (Idaho Ct.App. 1982). "The goal of this test is to identify the state most significantly related to a particular issue and to apply its law to resolve that issue."

  3. Seubert Excavator, Inc. v. Anderson Logging Co.

    126 Idaho 648 (Idaho 1995)   Cited 31 times
    Stating "[a]lthough never adopted in full, this Court has opted in favor of applying the most significant relationship test set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws"

    See, e.g., Clark v. Saint Paul Property Liab. Ins. Cos., 102 Idaho 756, 757, 639 P.2d 454, 455 (1981) (citations omitted). Although never adopted in full, this Court has opted in favor of applying the most significant relationship test set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (the Restatement). E.g., Johnson v. Pischke, 108 Idaho 397, 700 P.2d 19 (1985) (adopting § 145 of the Restatement); Rungee v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 92 Idaho 718, 449 P.2d 378 (1968) (adopting the proposed official draft of what became § 188 of the Restatement). The goal of this test is to identify the state most significantly related to a particular issue and to apply its law to resolve that issue.

  4. DeMeyer v. Maxwell

    647 P.2d 783 (Idaho Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 11 times

    Id. at § 98. In Rungee v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 92 Idaho 718, 449 P.2d 378 (1968), our Supreme Court adopted the "most significant relationship" test for determining the applicable law in contract dispute cases. 92 Idaho at 722-23, 449 P.2d at 382-83.

  5. Industrial Indem. Ins. Co. v. United States

    757 F.2d 982 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 25 times
    Finding that Illinois law lacked a substantial relationship to the parties, even though it was the place of contracting

    Idaho has adopted the Restatement rule that the law governing interpretation of a contract is the local law of the state that has "the most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties." Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 188(1) (1971) (hereinafter cited as Rest. 2d); Rungee v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 92 Idaho 718, 449 P.2d 378, 382-83 (1968). The relevant contacts include:

  6. C R FORESTRY v. CONSOLIDATED HUMAN RESOURCES, AZ

    Case No. CV 05-381-N-EJL-CWD (D. Idaho Jul. 15, 2008)

    Barber v. State Farm Mut. Ins., 931 P.2d, 1195, 1199 (Idaho 1997). See also Grover v. Isom, 53 P.3d 821 (Idaho 2002); Rungee v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 449 P.2d 378 (Idaho 1968); DeMeyer v. Maxwell, 647 P.2d 783 (Idaho Ct.App. 1982). "The goal of this test is to identify the state most significantly related to a particular issue and to apply its law to resolve that issue." Suebert Excavators Inc. v. Anderson Logging Co., 889 P.2d. 82, 85 (Idaho 1995).

  7. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. v. Megatrux Transportation, Inc.

    750 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2014)   Cited 37 times
    Holding that a claim for attorneys' fees agreed to by contract was not preempted because it does not “enlarge or limit the responsibilities of the carrier for loss of property,” and “[e]nforcement of a self-imposed undertaking poses no risk of patchwork regulation or different demands in different jurisdictions”

    Relying on the Supreme Court's holding in Harris, state courts in Oklahoma, Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon have also determined that a generally applicable attorney's fee statute is not preempted by the Carmack Amendment. See AME, Inc. v. Consolidated Freightways, 783 P.2d 499 (Okla.Civ.App.1989); Pac. Intermountain Express Co. v. Leonard E. Conrad, Inc., 88 Nev. 569, 502 P.2d 106 (1972); Rungee v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 92 Idaho 718, 449 P.2d 378 (1968); Troute v. Aero Mayflower Transit Co., Inc., 78 Or.App. 564, 718 P.2d 745 (1986).The analysis becomes more muddled by a series of decisions involving a Texas statute, which ironically was a successor to the statute found to be not preempted by the Supreme Court in Harris.

  8. A.T. Clayton & Co. v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad

    901 F.2d 833 (10th Cir. 1990)   Cited 24 times
    Affirming an award for attorney fees pursuant to an Oklahoma statute in a Carmack Amendment case

    Oregon, Nevada, Florida, and Idaho have ruled that state attorney fees statutes are not preempted by Carmack. See Troute v. Aero Mayflower Transit Co., 78 Or.App. 564, 718 P.2d 745 (1986); Pacific Intermountain Express, Co. v. Conrad, Inc., 88 Nev. 569, 502 P.2d 106 (1972); Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Brewer, 258 So.2d 496 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1972); and Rungee v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 92 Idaho 718, 449 P.2d 378 (1968). However, Nebraska and Texas have refused to apply their state statutes to interstate carriers on preemption grounds.

  9. Marshall W. Nelson & Assoc. Inc. v. YRC Inc.

    Case No. 11-C-0401 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 3, 2011)   Cited 2 times

    Marshall then argues that, while "[t]he Seventh Circuit has not squarely addressed whether a Wisconsin common law bad faith denial of an insurance claim is preempted by the Carmack Amendment . . . other courts have held that such claims are not preempted." (Pl.'s Br. at 4) (citing Rungee v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 92 Idaho 718, 449 P. 2d 378 (1968); Farina v. United Parcel Serv, Inc., Nos. M-21-84, MDL-1339, 00-CIV-3811; 02-CIV-2703, 2002 WL 1766554 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2002)). First of all, Rungee is a decision of the Idaho Supreme Court and is of limited, if any, precedential weight in this federal district court.

  10. GENERAL SEC INDEMY CO., ARIZ. v. GREAT N. INS.

    Case No. CV 06-0032-S-MHW (D. Idaho Mar. 19, 2007)

    The Idaho Supreme Court has adopted the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws ("Restatement") "most significant contacts" test. See Rungee v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 92 Idaho 718 (1968); DeMeyer v. Maxwell, 103 Idaho 327 (Ct.App. 1982); and Grover v. Isom, 137 Idaho 770 (2002). The goal of this test is to identify the state most significantly related to a particular issue and apply its law to resolve that issue.