Mixed Deck — All ID BAR Topics Flashcards

Under Idaho corporate law, which of the following transactions typically requires shareholder approval?

Answer: A merger or sale of substantially all corporate assets

Fundamental corporate transactions such as mergers, consolidations, and sales of substantially all assets generally require shareholder approval under Idaho's Business Corporation Act.

When dividing community property in an Idaho divorce, the court is required to:

Answer: Divide community property substantially equally between the spouses

Idaho Code § 32-712 requires courts to divide community property substantially equally between spouses upon divorce, reflecting Idaho's community property framework.

In Idaho, the statute of limitations for most personal injury claims is:

Answer: 2 years

Idaho Code § 5-219 provides a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions.

Under Idaho law, how does a court treat a child's expressed preference regarding custody arrangements?

Answer: It is one factor the court may consider regardless of the child's age

Under Idaho Code § 32-717(5), a child's wishes regarding custody are one of many factors the court may consider at any age, but the preference is never automatically binding on the court.

Under I.R.C.P. 26, when must initial disclosures be served in Idaho state court?

Answer: At the time specified in the court's scheduling order, but no later than 28 days after the parties' Rule 26(f) conference

Idaho Rule 26(a)(1)(C) requires initial disclosures within the time set by the scheduling order, mirroring the federal framework.

Which of the following is a valid affirmative defense to negligence that completely bars recovery in Idaho?

Answer: Assumption of risk (express)

Express assumption of risk — where the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily agrees to accept a specific risk — completely bars recovery in Idaho.

Under FRE 609, a prior felony conviction may be used to impeach a non-criminal-defendant witness if:

Answer: The probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect

For a non-defendant witness, FRE 609(a)(1)(A) permits impeachment with a prior felony conviction if the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect (a standard more favorable than Rule 403).

Under the tort of trespass to land, liability exists even without:

Answer: Physical damage to the land

Trespass to land is an intentional tort — liability attaches upon intentional entry regardless of whether actual damage occurs.

Under FRE 702, expert testimony is admissible when the expert's opinion is:

Answer: Based on sufficient facts, a reliable method reliably applied to the case

FRE 702 (the Daubert standard) requires expert testimony to be based on sufficient facts, a reliable methodology, and the reliable application of that methodology to the facts of the case.

Under Idaho's Tort Claims Act (Idaho Code § 6-901 et seq.), which of the following is generally required before suing a governmental entity?

Answer: Filing a notice of tort claim within 180 days of the loss or injury

Idaho Code § 6-906 requires a claimant to file a notice of tort claim with the governmental entity within 180 days of the loss or injury as a prerequisite to suit.

Under Idaho's Uniform Parentage Act, a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity signed by both parents has:

Answer: The same legal effect as a court judgment establishing paternity

Under Idaho Code § 7-1106, a valid and unchallenged voluntary acknowledgment of paternity has the same legal effect as a court judgment establishing paternity, creating full parental rights and obligations.

In Idaho, public officials bringing defamation claims must prove:

Answer: Actual malice — knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth

Following New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, public officials must prove actual malice — that the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.

Under Idaho law, what must the moving party demonstrate to obtain modification of an existing child custody order?

Answer: A material and substantial change in circumstances since the entry of the prior custody order

Idaho courts require the moving party to demonstrate a material and substantial change in circumstances since the prior custody order before reopening the custody determination, to protect children from ongoing litigation and instability.

Under FRE 801(d)(2), which of the following is a party admission not subject to the hearsay rule?

Answer: A statement by an authorized agent of a party regarding a matter within the scope of agency

FRE 801(d)(2)(C)-(D) classifies statements by an agent authorized to make the statement, or by an agent within the scope of employment, as non-hearsay admissions.

Under FRE 803(1), a present sense impression is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule when the statement:

Answer: Describes an event made while perceiving it or immediately after

FRE 803(1) covers statements describing an event made while the declarant was perceiving it or immediately thereafter, capturing the contemporaneous nature as a guarantee of trustworthiness.

Under Idaho corporate law, directors owe which of the following duties to the corporation?

Answer: A duty of profitability and a duty to maximize shareholder value

Idaho corporate directors owe a duty of care (act as a reasonably prudent person would), a duty of loyalty (no self-dealing), and a duty of good faith in all corporate decision-making.

A shareholder's derivative suit in Idaho allows a shareholder to:

Answer: Bring a claim on behalf of the corporation for wrongs done to the corporation when the board refuses to act

A derivative suit is brought by a shareholder on behalf of the corporation to enforce a corporate cause of action when the board wrongfully refuses to do so — any recovery belongs to the corporation.

In Idaho, a notice of appeal from a district court judgment must be filed within:

Answer: 42 days

Idaho Appellate Rule 14(a) requires a notice of appeal to be filed within 42 days of the entry of the final judgment.

Under FRE 407's subsequent remedial measures rule, which of the following would be ADMISSIBLE?

Answer: Evidence of a subsequent safety policy to prove the defendant controlled the premises

FRE 407 allows subsequent remedial measure evidence when offered to prove ownership or control — not to prove negligence, defect, or culpable conduct.

Under the economic loss rule in Idaho, a plaintiff generally cannot recover in tort for:

Answer: Purely economic losses without accompanying physical injury or property damage

The economic loss rule bars recovery in negligence or strict liability for purely economic losses — lost profits or business losses — unaccompanied by physical injury or property damage.