Opinion ID: 4032997
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: “When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, this Court applies the same standard of review used by the district court in ruling on the motion.” Idaho Dev., LLC v. Teton View Golf Estates, LLC, 152 Idaho 401, 404, 272 P.3d 373, 376 (2011) (quoting Mortensen v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 149 Idaho 437, 441, 235 P.3d 387, 391 (2010)). “A grant of summary judgment is warranted where ‘the pleadings, depositions and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is 7 entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Id. (quoting I.R.C.P. 56(c)). “The fact that both parties file motions for summary judgment does not necessarily mean that there are no genuine issues of material fact.” Banner Life Ins. Co. v. Mark Wallace Dixson Irrevocable Tr., 147 Idaho 117, 123, 206 P.3d 481, 487 (2009). “The grant or denial of leave to amend after a responsive pleading has been filed is a matter that is within the discretion of the trial court and is subject to reversal on appeal only for an abuse of that discretion.” Black Canyon Racquetball Club, Inc. v. Idaho First Nat’l Bank, N.A., 119 Idaho 171, 175, 804 P.2d 900, 904 (1991). Additionally, “[t]he district court’s determination as to whether an action was brought or defended frivolously will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” Idaho Military Historical Soc’y, Inc. v. Maslen, 156 Idaho 624, 629, 329 P.3d 1072, 1077 (2014).