Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
39 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1924–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Idaho courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Baileygreen2 sentences2018United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 395 (1980). 2013United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 395 , 100 S.Ct. 624, 626-27 , 62 L.Ed.2d 575, 581-82 (1980). | 11 | 11 |
State v. Windsorgreen2 sentences2018State v. Windsor, 110 Idaho 410, 417 , 716 P.2d 1182, 1189 (1985). 2018State v. Windsor, 110 Idaho 410, 417 , 716 P.2d 1182, 1189 (1985). | 7 | 7 |
Cuevas v. Barrazagreen2 sentences2017Cuevas v. Barraza, 146 Idaho 511, 518 , 198 P.3d 740, 747 (2008). 2017Cuevas v. Barraza, 146 Idaho 511, 518 , 198 P.3d 740, 747 (2008). | 2 | 3 |
Brown v. City of Pocatellogreen2 sentences2025The pleading standard “requires more than a naked recitation of facts from which a hyper-vigilant attorney could possibly foresee the possibility of a given cause of action.” Brown v. City of Pocatello, 148 Idaho 802, 809-10 , 229 P.3d 1164, 1171-72 (2010) (citation omitted). 2025The pleading standard “requires more than a naked recitation of facts from which a hyper-vigilant attorney could possibly foresee the possibility of a given cause of action.” Brown v. City of Pocatello, 148 Idaho 802, 809-10 , 229 P.3d 1164, 1171-72 (2010) (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Gillespie v. Mountain Park Estates, L.L.C.green2 sentences2010See Gillespie v. Mountain Park Estates, L.L.C., 138 Idaho 27, 30 , 56 P.3d 1277, 1280 (2002) (stating that specific factual assertions put the defendant on notice of a promissoryestoppel claim). 2010See Gillespie v. Mountain Park Estates, L.L.C., 138 Idaho 27, 30 , 56 P.3d 1277, 1280 (2002) (stating that specific factual assertions put the defendant on notice of a promissoryestoppel claim). | 2 | 2 |
Roman v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See Roman, 125 Idaho at 647 , 873 P.2d at 901 . 2016See Roman, 125 Idaho at 647 , 873 P.2d at 901 . | 1 | 1 |
Fields v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Fields v. State, 135 Idaho 286, 291 , 17 P.3d 230, 235 (2000) (Fields II) (refusing to consider evidence submitted in later filings, absent an amendment to the petition, to form a basis for granting a petition for post-conviction relief). 2013See Fields v. State, 135 Idaho 286, 291 , 17 P.3d 230, 235 (2000) (Fields II) (refusing to consider evidence submitted in later filings, absent an amendment to the petition, to form a basis for granting a petition for post-conviction relief). | 1 | 1 |
Rincover v. State, Department of Finance, Securities Bureaugreen2 sentences2009“In reviewing a ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the question is whether the non-movant has alleged sufficient facts in support of his claim, which if true, would entitle him to relief.” Rincover v. Dep't of Fin., 128 Idaho 653, 656 , 917 P.2d 1293, 1296 (1996). 2009“In reviewing a ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the question is whether the non-movant has alleged sufficient facts in support of his claim, which if true, would entitle him to relief.” Rincover v. Dep't of Fin., 128 Idaho 653, 656 , 917 P.2d 1293, 1296 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
Lohman v. Flynngreen2 sentences2005Lohman v. Flynn, 139 Idaho 312, 319 , 78 P.3d 379, 386 (2003). 2005Lohman v. Flynn, 139 Idaho 312, 319 , 78 P.3d 379, 386 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
Hays v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Although the motion states that it is brought pursuant to I.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), “[i]f, on a motion asserting [12(b)(6)] to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one of summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56....” I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) (2001); see also Fort Hall Water Users Ass’n v. U.S., 129 Idaho 39, 41 , 921 P.2d 739, 741 (1996); Hays v. State, 132 Idaho 516, 519 , 975 P.2d 1181, 1184 (Ct.App.1999); Hellickson v. Je 2002Although the motion states that it is brought pursuant to I.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), “[i]f, on a motion asserting [12(b)(6)] to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one of summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56....” I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) (2001); see also Fort Hall Water Users Ass’n v. U.S., 129 Idaho 39, 41 , 921 P.2d 739, 741 (1996); Hays v. State, 132 Idaho 516, 519 , 975 P.2d 1181, 1184 (Ct.App.1999); Hellickson v. Je | 1 | 1 |
Hellickson v. Jenkinsgreen2 sentences2002Although the motion states that it is brought pursuant to I.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), “[i]f, on a motion asserting [12(b)(6)] to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one of summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56....” I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) (2001); see also Fort Hall Water Users Ass’n v. U.S., 129 Idaho 39, 41 , 921 P.2d 739, 741 (1996); Hays v. State, 132 Idaho 516, 519 , 975 P.2d 1181, 1184 (Ct.App.1999); Hellickson v. Je 2002Although the motion states that it is brought pursuant to I.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), “[i]f, on a motion asserting [12(b)(6)] to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one of summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56....” I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) (2001); see also Fort Hall Water Users Ass’n v. U.S., 129 Idaho 39, 41 , 921 P.2d 739, 741 (1996); Hays v. State, 132 Idaho 516, 519 , 975 P.2d 1181, 1184 (Ct.App.1999); Hellickson v. Je | 1 | 1 |
Fort Hall Water Users Ass'n v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2002Although the motion states that it is brought pursuant to I.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), “[i]f, on a motion asserting [12(b)(6)] to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one of summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56....” I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) (2001); see also Fort Hall Water Users Ass’n v. U.S., 129 Idaho 39, 41 , 921 P.2d 739, 741 (1996); Hays v. State, 132 Idaho 516, 519 , 975 P.2d 1181, 1184 (Ct.App.1999); Hellickson v. Je 2002Although the motion states that it is brought pursuant to I.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), “[i]f, on a motion asserting [12(b)(6)] to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one of summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56....” I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) (2001); see also Fort Hall Water Users Ass’n v. U.S., 129 Idaho 39, 41 , 921 P.2d 739, 741 (1996); Hays v. State, 132 Idaho 516, 519 , 975 P.2d 1181, 1184 (Ct.App.1999); Hellickson v. Je | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Brazil
green
2 sentences2013In State v. Brazil, 136 Idaho 327 , 33 P.3d 218 (Ct.App.2001), we described the circumstances in which a variance will require reversal of a conviction: A determination of whether a variance is fatal depends on whether the basic functions of the pleading requirement have been met. 2013In State v. Brazil, 136 Idaho 327 , 33 P.3d 218 (Ct.App.2001), we described the circumstances in which a variance will require reversal of a conviction: A determination of whether a variance is fatal depends on whether the basic functions of the pleading requirement have been met. | 5 | 2010–2013 |
DeRushé v. State
green
2 sentences2024Id. 2024Id. | 4 | 2024–2024 |
Orrock Ex Rel. Micron Technology, Inc. v. Appleton
green
2 sentences2016In order to advance this policy, Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) provides, in pertinent part, that: “The complaint .shall also allege with particularity the efforts, if any, made by the plaintiff to obtain the action which plaintiff desires from the directors or comparable authority and, if necessary, from the shareholders or members, and the reasons for the plaintiffs failure to obtain the action or for not making the effort.” As we held in Orrock , a plaintiffs failure to satisfy the Rule’s pleading requirement regarding futility is grounds for dismissal. 147 Idaho at 618-19, 213 P.3d at 2016In order to advance this policy, Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) provides, in pertinent part, that: “The complaint shall also allege with particularity the efforts, if any, made by the plaintiff to obtain the action which plaintiff desires from the directors or comparable authority and, if necessary, from the shareholders or members, and the reasons for the plaintiff’s failure to obtain the action or for not making the effort.” As we held in Orrock, a plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the Rule’s pleading requirement regarding futility is grounds for dismissal. 147 Idaho at 618–19, 213 P.3d at | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Massey Ex Rel. Massey v. Conagra Foods, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016Id. 2014Id. | 2 | 2014–2016 |
Idaho State Police Ex Rel. Russell v. Real Property Situated in the County of Cassia
green
2 sentences2012Russell, 144 Idaho at 63 , 156 P.3d at 564 ; Cuevas, 146 Idaho at 518 , 198 P.3d at 747 . 2012Russell, 144 Idaho at 63 , 156 P.3d at 564 ; Cuevas, 146 Idaho at 518 , 198 P.3d at 747 . | 2 | 2008–2012 |
Stuart v. State
green
2 sentences2013Stuart, 149 Idaho at 41 , 232 P.3d at 819 . 2013Stuart, 149 Idaho at 41 , 232 P.3d at 819 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Country Cove Development, Inc. v. May
green
2 sentences2012Although a heightened pleading standard exists with respect to claims of fraud, the “traditional I.R.C.P. 56(e) summary judgment principles and standards govern the granting of summary judgment on the issue[ ] of fraud.” Country Cove, 143 Idaho at 600 , 150 P.3d at 293 . 2012Although a heightened pleading standard exists with respect to claims of fraud, the “traditional I.R.C.P. 56(e) summary judgment principles and standards govern the granting of summary judgment on the issue[ ] of fraud.” Country Cove, 143 Idaho at 600 , 150 P.3d at 293 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Lettunich v. Key Bank National Ass'n
green
2 sentences2005Lettunich v. Key Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 141 Idaho 362 , 109 P.3d 1104 (2005); Gunter v. Murphy’s Lounge, L.L.C., 141 Idaho 16 , 105 P.3d 676 (2005); Meikle v. Watson, 138 Idaho 680 , 69 P.3d 100 (2003). 2005Lettunich v. Key Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 141 Idaho 362 , 109 P.3d 1104 (2005); Gunter v. Murphy’s Lounge, L.L.C., 141 Idaho 16 , 105 P.3d 676 (2005); Meikle v. Watson, 138 Idaho 680 , 69 P.3d 100 (2003). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Gunter v. Murphy's Lounge, LLC
green
2 sentences2005Lettunich v. Key Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 141 Idaho 362 , 109 P.3d 1104 (2005); Gunter v. Murphy’s Lounge, L.L.C., 141 Idaho 16 , 105 P.3d 676 (2005); Meikle v. Watson, 138 Idaho 680 , 69 P.3d 100 (2003). 2005Lettunich v. Key Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 141 Idaho 362 , 109 P.3d 1104 (2005); Gunter v. Murphy’s Lounge, L.L.C., 141 Idaho 16 , 105 P.3d 676 (2005); Meikle v. Watson, 138 Idaho 680 , 69 P.3d 100 (2003). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Meikle v. Watson
green
2 sentences2005Lettunich v. Key Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 141 Idaho 362 , 109 P.3d 1104 (2005); Gunter v. Murphy’s Lounge, L.L.C., 141 Idaho 16 , 105 P.3d 676 (2005); Meikle v. Watson, 138 Idaho 680 , 69 P.3d 100 (2003). 2005Lettunich v. Key Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 141 Idaho 362 , 109 P.3d 1104 (2005); Gunter v. Murphy’s Lounge, L.L.C., 141 Idaho 16 , 105 P.3d 676 (2005); Meikle v. Watson, 138 Idaho 680 , 69 P.3d 100 (2003). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Whitlock v. Haney Seed Co.
green
2 sentences2000Rule 8(a)(l)(2) requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” This pleading requirement has been interpreted liberally, see, e.g., Whitlock v. Haney Seed Co., 114 Idaho 628 , 759 P.2d 919 (Ct.App.1988), Greenwade v. Idaho State Tax Comm’n, 119 Idaho 501 , 808 P.2d 420 (Ct.App.1991). 2000Rule 8(a)(l)(2) requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” This pleading requirement has been interpreted liberally, see, e.g., Whitlock v. Haney Seed Co., 114 Idaho 628 , 759 P.2d 919 (Ct.App.1988), Greenwade v. Idaho State Tax Comm’n, 119 Idaho 501 , 808 P.2d 420 (Ct.App.1991). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Greenwade v. Idaho State Tax Commission
green
2 sentences2000Rule 8(a)(l)(2) requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” This pleading requirement has been interpreted liberally, see, e.g., Whitlock v. Haney Seed Co., 114 Idaho 628 , 759 P.2d 919 (Ct.App.1988), Greenwade v. Idaho State Tax Comm’n, 119 Idaho 501 , 808 P.2d 420 (Ct.App.1991). 2000Rule 8(a)(l)(2) requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” This pleading requirement has been interpreted liberally, see, e.g., Whitlock v. Haney Seed Co., 114 Idaho 628 , 759 P.2d 919 (Ct.App.1988), Greenwade v. Idaho State Tax Comm’n, 119 Idaho 501 , 808 P.2d 420 (Ct.App.1991). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Berger v. United States
green
2 sentences1985As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 82 , 55 S.Ct. 629, 630 , 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935): “The true inquiry ... is not whether there has been a variance in proof, but whether there has been such a variance as to ‘affect the substantial rights’ of the accused. 1985As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 82 , 55 S.Ct. 629, 630 , 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935): “The true inquiry ... is not whether there has been a variance in proof, but whether there has been such a variance as to ‘affect the substantial rights’ of the accused. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Cook v. Soltman
green
2 sentences1985Therefore, the district court’s order is properly viewed as a grant of summary judgment to defendants, I.R.C.P. 56(c); Cook v. Soltman, 96 Idaho 187 , 525 P.2d 969 (1974), and the record must be viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, the non-moving parties to the motion granted. 1985Therefore, the district court’s order is properly viewed as a grant of summary judgment to defendants, I.R.C.P. 56(c); Cook v. Soltman, 96 Idaho 187 , 525 P.2d 969 (1974), and the record must be viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, the non-moving parties to the motion granted. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Frank J. Kozak v. Willard B. Wells, Administrator, Etc.
green
1 sentence1974When the judge examines the adequacy of the complaint accompanying the petition to intervene, he is in essence subjecting the pleading to the analysis he would make in ruling upon a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), i. e., asking whether a “well-pleaded defense or claim is asserted.” Kozak v. Wells, supra. The requirement of Rule 8(c), that statute of limitations defenses to original com *306 plaints be affirmatively asserted, is equally applicable to petitions to intervene. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Finley v. Pew
green
2 sentences1924Appellant relies upon the case of Finley v. Pew, 28 Wyo. 342 , 205 Pac. 310 , 206 Pac. 148 , wherein the tests, as to whether an amended complaint states a new cause of action, are as follows: (1) Whether the same evidence will support both pleadings; (2) Whether the same meas *435 ure of damages is applicable in both cases, and (3) Whether a recovery on the amended pleading will bar a recovery on the original. 1924Appellant relies upon the case of Finley v. Pew, 28 Wyo. 342 , 205 Pac. 310 , 206 Pac. 148 , wherein the tests, as to whether an amended complaint states a new cause of action, are as follows: (1) Whether the same evidence will support both pleadings; (2) Whether the same meas *435 ure of damages is applicable in both cases, and (3) Whether a recovery on the amended pleading will bar a recovery on the original. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.