when (at what sequential time) is a statement a valid rebuttle that judge must consider

[sallybaxter]

Tell us what happened in your first trial and you might get helpful comments. Be specific, no generalities.

lots of stuff happened but this question was only about one isse (or non issue). the judge made statement "I have the unrebutted testimony" as causal to or influential to her disposition. i argue it was already on record via my testamony so it was not unrebutted testimony. naturally the only place I would argue that would be in Appellate review.

 

[adjusterjack]

3. Appeal to Supreme Court. And my understanding is that on Supreme Court level only lower court observance of rules is considered

No, you got that wrong. You've also got it wrong if you think filing an appeal to the Supreme Court of Idaho is a walk in the park.

Filing an appeal at that level involves convincing the appeals judges that your judge made an error in applying the law or interpreting the facts. You don't get to correct YOUR mistakes. You don't get to submit new evidence. You don't get to complain that the other party lied.

If you really want to know how appeals to the Supreme Court work read this Guide:

https://isc.idaho.gov/files/IdahoAppellateInformationHandbook_2013.pdf

Read the Appellate Rules:

https://isc.idaho.gov/iar

And pick any of the Supreme Court decisions to see what the parties had to do to get the lower court decisions upheld or changed:

https://law.justia.com/cases/idaho/supreme-court-civil/2018/

this question was only about one isse (or non issue). the judge made statement "I have the unrebutted testimony" as causal to or influential to her disposition. i argue it was already on record via my testamony so it was not unrebutted testimony. naturally the only place I would argue that would be in Appellate review.

You'd be wasting your time, your money, and the court's time and you would lose the appeal because your initial testimony is NOT the rebuttal of the Defendant's testimony. You just don't seem to want to accept that so have fun learning it the hard and costly way.

 

[sallybaxter]

Thanks for that clarification. At this point I'd better focus on #2 and worry about the other stuff if need be later.

 

[adjusterjack]

If you lose on number 2, forget about number 3.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Sorry not trying to be vague but there really are not many specifics...other than just kind of a procedural question in the ether at this point. My understanding is in ID if you file a small claims case you get 3 total chances. 1 small claims. 2. Do-Over 3. Appeal to Supreme Court. And my understanding is that on Supreme Court level only lower court observance of rules is considered. And only #2 observance of rules (unless #1 is introduced in #2).

Not exactly right. After the small claims case is heard, you get to appeal to the district court. The district court proceeding is de novo, which means that you get a completely new shot at the case; what happened in the small claims trial no longer matters. The trial in the the district court is critical. That is your last chance to introduce evidence and to challenge evidence the other side seeks to admit. It is your last chance to convince the court of what the facts of the case are.

After your trial in the district court, you may appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court but the appeal to the Supreme Court is much more limited; you are essentially limited to arguing that the district court made some legal error in the case that would justify reversing the district court's judgment. You cannot introduce any new evidence in the Supreme Court or make any arguments you did not make to the district court. The Supreme court gives great deference to the district court’s determination of the facts. For the most part, you cannot challenge the district court's determination of the facts in the appeal. You are limited to challenging the court's application of the law.

The Supreme court looks at the record of the case in the district court, so you need to be sure that you make necessary objections, etc., in the district court so that is on record or you cannot raise it in the appeals court. For example, if the district court made an error in admitting evidence, you must generally object to that at the time the district court admits the evidence to make a record of the objection and the courts decision on that. Then if the court gets it wrong you have an issue to raise on appeal. But if you failed to make the proper objection to the district court, the Supreme court likely won't consider it.

Legal cases start with the facts — the evidence of who did what, when it was done, and at what time it was done. The facts are the most critical piece of the case, and the district court is your last chance to get the court to view the facts favorably to you. So you need to focus on getting a good result in that district court trial. Don't try to come up with all kinds of appeals strategies before you try that district court case. If you try to be clever here you can screw yourself up. Put the work into making a great presentation to the district court. If you do that, you may find that no appeal is even necessary.

 

[sallybaxter]

Thanks for that description of the district court and Supreme court processes. I do want to make a strong case to the district court. I am hoping to introduce the defendants own testimony in #1 at the district court (#2) in the few instances where I can prove they are lying.

 

[Zigner]

My understanding is in ID if you file a small claims case you get 3 total chances. 1 small claims. 2. Do-Over 3. Appeal to Supreme Court.

It's quite apparent that you didn't bother to look at the link I posted.

 

[Zigner]

Thanks for that description of the district court and Supreme court processes. I do want to make a strong case to the district court. I am hoping to introduce the defendants own testimony in #1 at the district court (#2) in the few instances where I can prove they are lying.

You're going to want an attorney at the second hearing, as it is not informal.

 

[sallybaxter]

It's quite apparent that you didn't bother to look at the link I posted.

Just read whole page...seems to say 1. small claims. 2. Do-Over 3. Appeal to Supreme Court.

 

[Zigner]

The very last sentence says: A judgment in a small claims appeal can also be appealed to the district court and the judgment of the district court can be appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court.

That means that you get (1) small claims hearing, (2) small claims hearing appeal, (3) appeal to district court, and (4) appeal to Supreme Court.

 

[adjusterjack]

I am hoping to introduce the defendants own testimony in #1 at the district court (#2)

You won't be able to. What you say that he said is hearsay. You'll have to wait until he says it again.

I can prove they are lying.

How?

I wish I had a buck for every time I read that and it turned out that the writer's idea of proof wasn't.

 

[sallybaxter]

The very last sentence says: A judgment in a small claims appeal can also be appealed to the district court and the judgment of the district court can be appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court.

That means that you get (1) small claims hearing, (2) small claims hearing appeal, (3) appeal to district court, and (4) appeal to Supreme Court.

OH so there are 4 possible hearings? That is news to me. Thanks for pointing that out ( the wording is not very clear)

 

[sallybaxter]

You won't be able to. What you say that he said is hearsay. You'll have to wait until he says it again.

submitted transcript of defendant testimony in lower court is hearsay?

How? I wish I had a buck for every time I read that and it turned out that the writer's idea of proof wasn't.

[/QUOTE]
one example, saying was at certain location at certian time when data evidence shows otherwise.

 

[adjusterjack]

submitted transcript of defendant testimony in lower court is hearsay?

OK, maybe not.

one example, saying was at certain location at certian time when data evidence shows otherwise.

How does that help your case?

 

[Taxing Matters]

submitted transcript of defendant testimony in lower court is hearsay?

It is not hearsay but you could only use it if his testimony at the second trial is different from his testimony at the first. If he says the same thing at the second trial then you have no need for his testimony from the first trial.