Courts apply the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens when necessary to prevent the imposition of an inconvenient jurisdiction on a litigant. A trial court may, in its discretion, dismiss a case even when contacts between the defendant and the forum state exist that may confer personal jurisdiction upon the trial court, if the case itself has no significant connection to the forum.

A resident plaintiff’s forum choice deserves deference, all else being more or less equal, but that choice does not foreclose a defendant from demonstrating that the private and public interest factors favor dismissal when another forum’s interests predominate.

In Idaho, the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens allows courts to dismiss a case if it determines that the chosen forum is inconvenient for the parties involved, even if the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. This doctrine is applied to ensure fairness and practicality in litigation. While the court will give deference to the plaintiff's choice of forum, especially if the plaintiff is a resident of Idaho, this preference can be overridden if the defendant can show that both private and public interest factors strongly favor the case being heard in a different jurisdiction. Private interest factors might include the location of evidence or witnesses, while public interest factors could involve the administrative burden on Idaho courts or the interest of another forum in deciding the case. The ultimate decision rests with the court's discretion, balancing the interests of all parties and the connection of the case to the forum state.