Maguire v. Yanke
Idaho Supreme Court
590 P.2d 85 (1978)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Jack Maguire (plaintiff) farmed 82 acres of unfenced land. Sheldon Yanke (defendant) had a ranch across the road, which included a herd of 130 cows, 130 calves, and eight bulls. Yanke fenced the ranch, but his cattle broke through the fence on several occasions and caused damage to Maguire’s land. Maguire sued Yanke and sought approximately $4,000 in actual damages and $10,000 in punitive damages. Idaho has rejected the common-law rule that owners of cattle and other livestock are responsible for damage caused by the animals. Instead, Idaho generally requires landowners to fence in their property to prevent cattle from entering onto the property and causing damage and permits those landowners to recover damages only if livestock break through a fence that meets certain standards. However, Idaho has also adopted a law that permits landowners to vote to create herd districts, which require livestock owners to fence their animals inside their land. That law excludes areas defined as open ranges from being eligible to be included in a herd district. Maguire and Yanke lived in an area of Idaho that was historically an area of enclosed lands. The trial court found in favor of Maguire and awarded actual damages but not punitive damages. Yanke appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Donaldson, J.)
Dissent (Bakes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
