# Sun Valley Shopping Center, Inc. v. Idaho Power Co.

> Idaho Supreme Court · January 2, 1991 · 119 Idaho 87

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9534875

## Case

- **Full name:** SUN VALLEY SHOPPING CENTER, INC., D/B/A Atkinson’s Market, an Idaho Corporation, Continental Casualty Company (As Subrogee of Pek Corporation D/B/A Chateau Drugs, an Idaho Corporation), Plaintiffs-Appellants, and John B. McCabe, Individually, Real Party in Interest-Appellant, v. IDAHO POWER COMPANY, a Maine Corporation, Defendant-Respondent; UNIGARD INSURANCE COMPANY (As Subrogee of Nancy’s Beauty Shop), Unigard Insurance Company (As Subrogee of William J. Boaz and Pamela S. Boaz D/B/A Ketchum Nutrition Center), Plaintiffs-Appellants, and John B. McCabe, Individually, Real Party in Interest-Appellant, v. IDAHO POWER COMPANY, a Maine Corporation, Defendant-Respondent; GIACOBBI SQUARE, a Joint Venture, a Partnership, by and Through Its Partners, Frank Pearson, Joseph Humphreys, Stanton Atkinson, and Don Atkinson, Capitol Investments, a General Partnership, by Its Partners Ron Sharp and Robert (Bob) Fenzl, Industrial Indemnity (As Subrogee of D.C.I. Group Companies, Inc. A/K/A Design Concepts, Inc., and Design Concepts, Inc., a Corporation, Arnie Egilsson and Dorette Egilsson D/B/A the Icelander, U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (As Subrogee of Desimo, Inc. D/B/A Carrolls), Terry Kent Sturges D/B/A Kids Stuff, U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (As Subrogee of Ann Hellwig D/B/A Put On’s), Kim Piotter D/B/A Undercover Agency, Allied Mutual Insurance Company, an Iowa Corporation, F/K/A Aid Insurance Company (Mutual), as Subrogee of Mountain Tops of Sun Valley, Inc., a Corporation, and John and Shirley Christensen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and John B. McCabe, Individually, Real Party in Interest-Appellant v. IDAHO POWER COMPANY, a Maine Corporation, Respondent
- **Court:** Idaho Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 2, 1991
- **Citations:** 119 Idaho 87; 803 P.2d 993; 1991 Ida. LEXIS 1
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Boyle
- **Judges:** Johnson, Boyle, Bakes, Winmill, Reinhardt, Tern
- **Cited by:** 430 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9534875

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining standard of review of a discretionary determination by the district court

## Opinion text

BOYLE, Justice,
dissenting.
I concur fully in Parts I, II and IV of the Court’s decision, however, I respectfully dissent to Part III.
The rule set forth in J.M.F. Trucking, Inc. v. Lewiston Carburetor & Electric, 113 Idaho 797 , 748 P.2d 381 (1987), is preferable to that established in the majority opinion. In addition, the circumstances of this case are significantly different from Anderson v. Ethington, 103 Idaho 658 , 651 P.2d 923 (1982), upon which the majority relies. In this case the trial court denied both a motion for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss at the end of plaintiffs case. The motion to dismiss in this case was made and denied after all of the plaintiff’s evidence had been received and heard by the court and jury at trial. Given the difference between the two motions, “[i]t is conceivable that a party may prevail on a motion for summary judgment and still have brought the claim without reasonable foundation,” Anderson v. Ethington, 103 Idaho 658 , 651 P.2d 923, 925 (1982), but to deny a motion to dismiss after all of plaintiff’s evidence has been heard is essentially a determination that a factual conflict exists sufficient to allow the case to be resolved by the jury. To thereafter make a post-trial determination that the case was brought frivolously and without foundation is inconsistent with this Court’s decision in J.M.F. Trucking, Inc. v. Lewiston Carburetor & Electric, 113 Idaho 797, 799 , 748 P.2d 381, 383 (1987). The legal principle set forth in J.M.F. Trucking, provides a certain degree of uniformity and guidance to both the district courts and trial bar, and, in my opinion, is preferable to the rule established in Part III of the majority opinion. Thus, I respectfully dissent to Part III.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9534875. Public record. Not legal advice.