Court Opinion

ID: 9627824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:55:58.794274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:50.784317
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
KEETON, Justice.
Respondents filed a petition for rehearing in which they object to the following statement in the opinion:
“The building itself was not destroyed, the walls and ceilings and upper stories, foundation and other parts were left intact, and tenants or persons occupying portions of the building other than appellants and their tenant suffered little or no damage. The fire did not render the building untenantable.”
The testimony discloses that there was extensive damage to portions of the building occupied by tenants other than appellants and the following portion of the statement will be deleted from the opinion:
“and tenants or persons occupying portions of the building other than appellants and their tenant suffered little or no damage.”
Appellants further refer to some parts of the testimony alleged to be conflicting with what was stated in the opinion. There is sufficient testimony to show that appellants desired continuation of the lease pri- or to the time the written notice of cancellation was served on them.
In reviewing a case where a non-suit is granted, the testimony must be construed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the nonsuit, and a nonsuit is justified only where there is an entire absence of substantial evidence tending to establish plaintiff’s case. McKee v. Chase, 73 Idaho 491, 253 P.2d 787.
The deleted part of the opinion above quoted does not change the conclusion or other propositions of law stated in the opinion as filed.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
TAYLOR, C. J., and PORTER, J., concur.