context: Further, they admit that they did not raise their dedication claim until after trial, and simply labeled it an implied-easement claim. Although they suggest a new theory of Idaho law, they cite nothing but contrary public-dedication eases without articulating why those decisions would allow a private dedication in this dispute.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 142 Idaho 635, 639
citation_a.parenthetical: reversing a fee award where some novel legal defenses were not frivolous
citation_a.sentence: See Partout v. Harper, 145 Idaho 683, 689, 183 P.3d 771, 777 (2008) (affirming a fee award where a party’s position on a purportedly unsettled legal issue was against the clear weight of Idaho law); cf. Thomas v. Madsen, 142 Idaho 635, 639, 132 P.3d 392, 396 (2006) (reversing a fee award where some novel legal defenses were not frivolous).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 145 Idaho 683, 689
citation_b.parenthetical: affirming a fee award where a party's position on a purportedly unsettled legal issue was against the clear weight of Idaho law
citation_b.sentence: See Partout v. Harper, 145 Idaho 683, 689, 183 P.3d 771, 777 (2008) (affirming a fee award where a party’s position on a purportedly unsettled legal issue was against the clear weight of Idaho law); cf. Thomas v. Madsen, 142 Idaho 635, 639, 132 P.3d 392, 396 (2006) (reversing a fee award where some novel legal defenses were not frivolous).