Court Opinion

ID: 9853992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:58:53.617365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:52.089865
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
concurring specially:
While I reluctantly concur in the result reached by the majority, I am not at all convinced that we should adhere so faithfully to federal precedent when it works such a harsh result. In other situations in which our rule has been virtually identical to the federal rule, we have declined to follow the federal cases interpreting the rule if that precedent did not seem appropriate in the Idaho context. Especially considering the criticism which has been leveled at the Schiavone case,4 this is perhaps an area in which we should re-examine our adherence to the federal precedent.

. See, e.g., Bauer, Schiavone: An Un-Fortunate Illustration of the Supreme Court’s Role as Interpreter of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 63 N.D.L.Rev. (1988); Brussack, Outrageous Fortune: The Case for Amending Rule 15(c) Again, 61 S.Cal.L.Rev. 671 (1988); Note, Looking Forward: A Fairer Application of the Relation Back Provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), 63 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 131 (1988).