Court Opinion

ID: 9587106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:18:01.274852+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:01.654690
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
separately concurring in the result.
Part VI of the Court’s opinion brings to the fore that which I wrote in Payne v. Foley relative to consideration of pretrial settlement negotiations. I am quoted correctly, and of course, gratified. However, I am not quoted fully. This occasion is used to add the ensuing sentences which qualified the view there expressed: “That is not to say, however, that a trial court ought not to make inquiry as to the possibility of a negotiated settlement. This has long been an acceptable procedure, and in my opinion a commendable one.” Payne v. Foley, 102 Idaho at 763, 639 P.2d at 1129.
With there having been three votes in Ross v. Coleman accepting my Payne v. Foley views, thus making that a majority position, perhaps the remainder of those views will likewise gain credit. To such I add my recollection that we, as a body, have also agreed that although district court judges may inquire as to possibilities of settlement, they, and the attorneys before them, should not discuss amounts that have been mentioned. In no event should settlement amounts being bandied around be made known to the court. Such would exclude, of course, casual discussions months later when a particular case is only history.
Regarding Sigdestad, on rereading that opinion from the Court of Appeals, I believe now, as I did then, that it was well-written and explanative. Ross v. Coleman had not yet been written; hence my remarks in Payne v. Foley were just that— remarks — when Sigdestad was written.