State v. Hodges
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Anderson v. City of Pocatello (Idaho 1987)
- State v. Barros (Idaho 1998)
- Bondy v. Levy (Idaho 1992)
- State Ex Rel. Ohman v. Ivan H. Talbot Family Trust (Idaho 1991)
- Golay v. Loomis (Idaho 1990)
- Cobbley v. City of Challis (Idaho 2002)
- Lake v. State (Idaho Ct. App. 1993)
- State v. Maland (Idaho Ct. App. 1993)
- Chenoweth v. Sanger (Idaho 1993)
- State v. Hardman (Idaho Ct. App. 1992)
- State v. Garner (Idaho Ct. App. 1992)
- Brooks v. Brooks (Idaho Ct. App. 1990)
- Bernard v. Roby (Idaho Ct. App. 1987)
- Goodwin v. Wulfenstein (Idaho Ct. App. 1984)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The state brings this appeal to test whether, after assigning rights to child support to the state, an ex-wife can then bind the state by a release to her ex-husband from all obligations for past due child support. Unfortunately, however, the record is insufficient for this Court to decide the case. This Court is bound by the record presented upon appeal. Neer v. Safeway Stores, 92 Idaho 361, 442 P.2d 771 (1968). See also, Lisher v. City and/or Village of Potlatch, 101 Idaho 343, 612 P.2d 1190 (1980).
In the present case there are no minutes indicating what occurred at the trial court level; there is no reporter’s transcript indicating what testimony was taken. The appellant has the initial burden of presenting a record sufficient to enable an appellate court to decide the case. Appellant has not met this burden, with no explanation why an adequate record has not been prepared. If the record was defective through no fault of appellant, the situation might be viewed differently. However, no adequate showing has been made which ex *766 cuses the appellant from presenting an adequate record on appeal so that this Court can properly evaluate the claimed errors.
Appellant and respondent have attempted to present the facts which were elicited at the hearing of this case to this Court by way of post-trial affidavits of counsel, a clearly unacceptable procedure. See Bradford v. Simpson, 97 Idaho 188, 541 P.2d 612 (1975); Annau v. Schutte, 96 Idaho 704, 535 P.2d 1095 (1975). In the absence of an adequate record, or a sufficient reason for the failure to produce a record, we affirm the trial court.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.