32 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mathews v. Eldridgegreen2 sentences2026When the State is requesting the relief implicating due process—here, termination of the parent-child relationship—the second Eldridge factor focuses on the “[g]overnment’s interest, 10 including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Eldridge, 424 U.S. at 335 . 2025The United States Supreme Court has identified three factors to consider in determining the specific due process requirements applicable in a particular circumstance: (1) “the private interest that will be affected by the official action”; (2) “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards”; and (3) the State’s “interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Mathews, 42 | 14 | 31 |
Lu Ranching Co. v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2024Three factors guide this balancing test: (1) the importance of the private interest at stake; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of rights given the processes at hand and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the Government’s 42 interest, ‘including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.’ Lu Ranching Co. v. United States, 138 Idaho 606, 608 , 67 P.3d 85, 87 (2003) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)). 2024Three factors guide this balancing test: (1) the importance of the private interest at stake; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of rights given the processes at hand and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the Government’s 42 interest, ‘including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.’ Lu Ranching Co. v. United States, 138 Idaho 606, 608 , 67 P.3d 85, 87 (2003) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)). | 3 | 3 |
Rios-Lopez v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Rios-Lopez v. State, 144 Idaho 340, 342 , 160 P.3d 1275, 1277 (Ct. App. 2007). 2017Rios-Lopez v. State, 144 Idaho 340, 342 , 160 P.3d 1275, 1277 (Ct. App. 2007). | 2 | 2 |
Rudd v. Ruddgreen2 sentences2011Gibbar, 143 Idaho at 945 , 155 P.3d at 1184 (citing Rudd v. Rudd, 105 Idaho 112, 115 , 666 P.2d 639, 642 (1983)). 6 and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. 2011Gibbar, 143 Idaho at 945 , 155 P.3d at 1184 (citing Rudd v. Rudd, 105 Idaho 112, 115 , 666 P.2d 639, 642 (1983)). 6 and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. | 1 | 1 |
Zinermon v. Burchgreen2 sentences2009Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 127 , 110 S.Ct. 975, 984 , 108 L.Ed.2d 100, 115 (1990) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 903 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 33 (1976)). 2009Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 127 , 110 S.Ct. 975, 984 , 108 L.Ed.2d 100, 115 (1990) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 903 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 33 (1976)). | 1 | 1 |
Aeschliman v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 903 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 33 (1976); Aeschliman v. State, 132 Idaho 397, 402 , 973 P.2d 749, 754 (Ct.App.1999). 2007Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 903 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 33 (1976); Aeschliman v. State, 132 Idaho 397, 402 , 973 P.2d 749, 754 (Ct.App.1999). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Carrgreen2 sentences1999Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); State v. Carr, 128 Idaho 181, 184 , 911 P.2d 774, 777 (Ct.App.1995). 1999Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); State v. Carr, 128 Idaho 181, 184 , 911 P.2d 774, 777 (Ct.App.1995). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Boise Tower Associates, LLC v. Hogland
green
2 sentences2019Identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. 8 Id. at 780–81, 215 P.3d at 500–01 (quoting Mathews 2019Identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. 8 Id. at 780–81, 215 P.3d at 500–01 (quoting Mathews | 2 | 2019–2019 |
State of Idaho, Department of Transportation v. Marvin Gibbar
green
1 sentence2011Gibbar, 143 Idaho at 945 , 155 P.3d at 1184 (citing Rudd v. Rudd, 105 Idaho 112, 115 , 666 P.2d 639, 642 (1983)). 6 and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
In Re Suspension of Driver's License
green
1 sentence2011Gibbar, 143 Idaho at 945 , 155 P.3d at 1184 (citing Rudd v. Rudd, 105 Idaho 112, 115 , 666 P.2d 639, 642 (1983)). 6 and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.