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.
30 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2014 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sivak v. Ada Countygreen2 sentences2014Brennan, 122 Idaho at 914 , 841 P.2d at 444 ; Sivak v. Ada County, 115 Idaho 762, 763 , 769 P.2d 1134, 1135 (Ct. App. 1989). 2014Brennan, 122 Idaho at 914 , 841 P.2d at 444 ; Sivak v. Ada County, 115 Idaho 762, 763 , 769 P.2d 1134, 1135 (Ct. App. 1989). | 19 | 19 |
Brennan v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Johnson v. State, 85 Idaho 123, 127 , 376 P.2d 704, 706 (1962); Brennan v. State, 122 Idaho 911, 914 , 841 P.2d 441, 444 (Ct.App.1992). *660 When we review an exercise of discretion in a habeas corpus proceeding, we conduct a three-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court rightly perceived the issue as one of discretion, acted within the boundaries of such discretion, and reached its decision by an exercise of reason. 2004Johnson v. State, 85 Idaho 123, 127 , 376 P.2d 704, 706 (1962); Brennan v. State, 122 Idaho 911, 914 , 841 P.2d 441, 444 (Ct.App.1992). *660 When we review an exercise of discretion in a habeas corpus proceeding, we conduct a three-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court rightly perceived the issue as one of discretion, acted within the boundaries of such discretion, and reached its decision by an exercise of reason. | 3 | 21 |
State v. Hedgergreen2 sentences2007As indicated earlier, this Court reviews a judge’s decision regarding the custody of a minor child for an abuse of discretion, which involves a three-tiered inquiry: “(1) whether the lower court rightly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the court acted within the outer boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to specific choices; and (3) whether the court reached its decision by an exercise of reason.” Chandler v. Chandler, 136 Idaho 246, 249 , 32 P.3d 140, 143 (citing State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 600 , 768 P.2d 1331, 1333 (1989) 2007As indicated earlier, this Court reviews a judge’s decision regarding the custody of a minor child for an abuse of discretion, which involves a three-tiered inquiry: “(1) whether the lower court rightly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the court acted within the outer boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to specific choices; and (3) whether the court reached its decision by an exercise of reason.” Chandler v. Chandler, 136 Idaho 246, 249 , 32 P.3d 140, 143 (citing State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 600 , 768 P.2d 1331, 1333 (1989) | 3 | 3 |
Chandler v. Chandlergreen2 sentences2013Rather, the proper inquiry is whether spousal maintenance is necessary to support the dependent spouse’s “standard of living established during the marriage.” Because of the disparity in income between Pedro and Bertha, and the obvious decrease in Bertha’s standard of living after the divorce, the district court found that the spousal maintenance award was proper. “"Whether to award spousal maintenance under [I.C. § 32-705] is discretionary and requires the court to give due consideration to each party’s financial needs and abilities.” Stewart v. Stewart, 143 Idaho 673, 679 , 152 P.3d 544, 550 2013Rather, the proper inquiry is whether spousal maintenance is necessary to support the dependent spouse’s “standard of living established during the marriage.” Because of the disparity in income between Pedro and Bertha, and the obvious decrease in Bertha’s standard of living after the divorce, the district court found that the spousal maintenance award was proper. “"Whether to award spousal maintenance under [I.C. § 32-705] is discretionary and requires the court to give due consideration to each party’s financial needs and abilities.” Stewart v. Stewart, 143 Idaho 673, 679 , 152 P.3d 544, 550 | 2 | 3 |
Sun Valley Shopping Center, Inc. v. Idaho Power Co.green2 sentences2007Review of a lower court’s exercise of discretion is conducted under a three-tiered inquiry: “(1) whether the lower court rightly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the court acted within the outer boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to specific choices; and (3) whether the court reached its decision by an exercise of reason.” Chandler, 136 Idaho at 249 , 32 P.3d at 143 (citing State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 600 , 768 P.2d 1331, 1333 (1989)); Sun Valley Shopping Center, Inc. v. Idaho Power Co., 119 Idaho 87, 94 , 803 P.2d 993, 1 2007Review of a lower court’s exercise of discretion is conducted under a three-tiered inquiry: “(1) whether the lower court rightly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the court acted within the outer boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to specific choices; and (3) whether the court reached its decision by an exercise of reason.” Chandler, 136 Idaho at 249 , 32 P.3d at 143 (citing State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 600 , 768 P.2d 1331, 1333 (1989)); Sun Valley Shopping Center, Inc. v. Idaho Power Co., 119 Idaho 87, 94 , 803 P.2d 993, 1 | 2 | 2 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Johnson v. State, 85 Idaho 123, 127 , 376 P.2d 704, 706 (1962); Brennan v. State, 122 Idaho 911, 914 , 841 P.2d 441, 444 (Ct.App.1992). *660 When we review an exercise of discretion in a habeas corpus proceeding, we conduct a three-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court rightly perceived the issue as one of discretion, acted within the boundaries of such discretion, and reached its decision by an exercise of reason. 2004Johnson v. State, 85 Idaho 123, 127 , 376 P.2d 704, 706 (1962); Brennan v. State, 122 Idaho 911, 914 , 841 P.2d 441, 444 (Ct.App.1992). *660 When we review an exercise of discretion in a habeas corpus proceeding, we conduct a three-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court rightly perceived the issue as one of discretion, acted within the boundaries of such discretion, and reached its decision by an exercise of reason. | 2 | 2 |
Stewart v. Stewartgreen2 sentences2013Rather, the proper inquiry is whether spousal maintenance is necessary to support the dependent spouse’s “standard of living established during the marriage.” Because of the disparity in income between Pedro and Bertha, and the obvious decrease in Bertha’s standard of living after the divorce, the district court found that the spousal maintenance award was proper. “"Whether to award spousal maintenance under [I.C. § 32-705] is discretionary and requires the court to give due consideration to each party’s financial needs and abilities.” Stewart v. Stewart, 143 Idaho 673, 679 , 152 P.3d 544, 550 2013Rather, the proper inquiry is whether spousal maintenance is necessary to support the dependent spouse’s “standard of living established during the marriage.” Because of the disparity in income between Pedro and Bertha, and the obvious decrease in Bertha’s standard of living after the divorce, the district court found that the spousal maintenance award was proper. “"Whether to award spousal maintenance under [I.C. § 32-705] is discretionary and requires the court to give due consideration to each party’s financial needs and abilities.” Stewart v. Stewart, 143 Idaho 673, 679 , 152 P.3d 544, 550 | 1 | 3 |
Dunagan v. Dunagangreen2 sentences2013Dunagan, 147 Idaho at 601 , 213 P.3d at 386 (internal citations omitted). 2013Dunagan, 147 Idaho at 601 , 213 P.3d at 386 (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Gibson v. Bennettgreen2 sentences2012Quinlan, 138 Idaho at 729 , 69 P.3d at 149 ; Gibson v. Bennett, 141 Idaho 270, 273 , 108 P.3d 417, 420 (Ct. App. 2005); Brennan v. State, 122 Idaho 911, 914 , 841 P.2d 441, 444 (Ct. App. 1992). 2012Quinlan, 138 Idaho at 729 , 69 P.3d at 149 ; Gibson v. Bennett, 141 Idaho 270, 273 , 108 P.3d 417, 420 (Ct. App. 2005); Brennan v. State, 122 Idaho 911, 914 , 841 P.2d 441, 444 (Ct. App. 1992). | 1 | 1 |
Mulch v. Mulchgreen2 sentences2007Regarding spousal maintenance, this Court reviews the trial court’s findings “that are the basis for the court's decision as to the duration and the amount of spousal maintenance to determine whether there exists substantial and competent evidence in support of these findings.” Chandler, 136 Idaho at 249 , 32 P.3d at 143 (citing Wilson v. Wilson, 131 Idaho 533, 535 , 960 P.2d 1262, 1264 (1998); Mulch v. Mulch, 125 Idaho 93, 98 , 867 P.2d 967, 972 (1994)). 2007Regarding spousal maintenance, this Court reviews the trial court’s findings “that are the basis for the court's decision as to the duration and the amount of spousal maintenance to determine whether there exists substantial and competent evidence in support of these findings.” Chandler, 136 Idaho at 249 , 32 P.3d at 143 (citing Wilson v. Wilson, 131 Idaho 533, 535 , 960 P.2d 1262, 1264 (1998); Mulch v. Mulch, 125 Idaho 93, 98 , 867 P.2d 967, 972 (1994)). | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2007Regarding spousal maintenance, this Court reviews the trial court’s findings “that are the basis for the court's decision as to the duration and the amount of spousal maintenance to determine whether there exists substantial and competent evidence in support of these findings.” Chandler, 136 Idaho at 249 , 32 P.3d at 143 (citing Wilson v. Wilson, 131 Idaho 533, 535 , 960 P.2d 1262, 1264 (1998); Mulch v. Mulch, 125 Idaho 93, 98 , 867 P.2d 967, 972 (1994)). 2007Regarding spousal maintenance, this Court reviews the trial court’s findings “that are the basis for the court's decision as to the duration and the amount of spousal maintenance to determine whether there exists substantial and competent evidence in support of these findings.” Chandler, 136 Idaho at 249 , 32 P.3d at 143 (citing Wilson v. Wilson, 131 Idaho 533, 535 , 960 P.2d 1262, 1264 (1998); Mulch v. Mulch, 125 Idaho 93, 98 , 867 P.2d 967, 972 (1994)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Quinlan v. Idaho Commission for Pardons & Parole
green
2 sentences2012Quinlan, 138 Idaho at 729 , 69 P.3d at 149 ; Gibson v. Bennett, 141 Idaho 270, 273 , 108 P.3d 417, 420 (Ct. App. 2005); Brennan v. State, 122 Idaho 911, 914 , 841 P.2d 441, 444 (Ct. App. 1992). 2012Quinlan, 138 Idaho at 729 , 69 P.3d at 149 ; Gibson v. Bennett, 141 Idaho 270, 273 , 108 P.3d 417, 420 (Ct. App. 2005); Brennan v. State, 122 Idaho 911, 914 , 841 P.2d 441, 444 (Ct. App. 1992). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Hoots v. Craven
green
2 sentences2011Hoots, 146 Idaho at 274 , 192 P.3d at 1098 . 2011Hoots, 146 Idaho at 274 , 192 P.3d at 1098 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Weaver v. Millard
green
2 sentences1996Id. at 697 , 819 P.2d at 115 . 1996Id. at 697 , 819 P.2d at 115 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.