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.
29 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 2020–2026 21 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, Corp.green2 sentences2025Under the Lunneborg standard, we ask whether the district court: “(1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (4) reached its decision by the exercise of reason.” 163 Idaho at 863, 421 P.3d at 194 (citation omitted). 2025Under the Lunneborg standard, we ask whether the district court: “(1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (4) reached its decision by the exercise of reason.” 163 Idaho at 863, 421 P.3d at 194 (citation omitted). | 19 | 25 |
State v. Hessgreen2 sentences2022“Accordingly, this Court uses the four-part Lunneborg standard to determine whether the district court ‘(1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (4) reached its decision by the exercise of reason.’ ” State v. Hess, 166 Idaho 707, 709 , 462 P.3d 1171, 1173 (2020) (quoting Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 Idaho 856 , 873, 421 P.3d 187, 204 (2018)). 2022“Accordingly, this Court uses the four-part Lunneborg standard to determine whether the district court ‘(1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (4) reached its decision by the exercise of reason.’ ” State v. Hess, 166 Idaho 707, 709 , 462 P.3d 1171, 1173 (2020) (quoting Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 Idaho 856 , 873, 421 P.3d 187, 204 (2018)). | 2 | 2 |
Valiant Idaho v. VP Incorporatedgreen2 sentences2020See Valiant Idaho, LLC, 164 Idaho at 332 , 429 P.3d at 873 ; Lunneborg, 163 Idaho at 863, 421 P.3d at 194 . 2020See Valiant Idaho, LLC, 164 Idaho at 332 , 429 P.3d at 873 ; Lunneborg, 163 Idaho at 863, 421 P.3d at 194 . | 2 | 2 |
Cummings v. No Title Co of Idahogreen2 sentences2026Cummings v. Stephens, 160 Idaho 847, 853 , 380 P.3d 168, 174 (2016); Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 Idaho 856 , 863, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (2018). 2026Cummings v. Stephens, 160 Idaho 847, 853 , 380 P.3d 168, 174 (2016); Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 Idaho 856 , 863, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (2018). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Smithgreen2 sentences2024Second, Sanchez did not contend that the district court abused its discretion under any prong of the Lunneborg test, and “[f]ailing to demonstrate that an abuse of discretion occurred under any part of the test . . . is fatal to [an] argument that the [trial] court abused its discretion.” Smith v. Smith, 167 Idaho 568, 584 , 473 P.3d 837, 853 (2020) (all but first alteration in original) (citation omitted). 2024Second, Sanchez did not contend that the district court abused its discretion under any prong of the Lunneborg test, and “[f]ailing to demonstrate that an abuse of discretion occurred under any part of the test . . . is fatal to [an] argument that the [trial] court abused its discretion.” Smith v. Smith, 167 Idaho 568, 584 , 473 P.3d 837, 853 (2020) (all but first alteration in original) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Valiant Idaho, LLC v. JV L.L.C.green1 sentence2022See Valiant Idaho, LLC v. JV L.L.C., 164 Idaho 280 , 291, 429 P.3d 168, 179 (2018) (A party claiming an abuse of discretion bears the burden to demonstrate violation of “at least one part of the abuse of discretion test.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Christopher T. Weavergreen2 sentences2020To comply with sub-parts 2–4 of the Lunneborg standard, the district court must “base the amount of restitution upon the preponderance of evidence submitted by the prosecutor, defendant, victim, or presentence investigator.” Cunningham I, 161 Idaho at 700, 390 P.3d at 426 (quoting State v. Weaver, 158 Idaho 167, 170 , 345 P.3d 226, 229 (Ct. App. 2014)). 2020To comply with sub-parts 2–4 of the Lunneborg standard, the district court must “base the amount of restitution upon the preponderance of evidence submitted by the prosecutor, defendant, victim, or presentence investigator.” Cunningham I, 161 Idaho at 700, 390 P.3d at 426 (quoting State v. Weaver, 158 Idaho 167, 170 , 345 P.3d 226, 229 (Ct. App. 2014)). | 1 | 1 |
MDS INVESTMENTS, LLC v. Stategreen2 sentences2020“A party claiming attorney’s fees must assert the specific statute, rule, or case authority for its claim.” Eighteen Mile Ranch, LLC v. Nord Excavating & Paving, Inc., 141 Idaho 716, 720 , 117 P.3d 130, 134 (2005) (quoting MDS Invs., L.L.C. v. State, 138 Idaho 456, 465 , 65 P.3d 197, 206 (2003)). 2020“A party claiming attorney’s fees must assert the specific statute, rule, or case authority for its claim.” Eighteen Mile Ranch, LLC v. Nord Excavating & Paving, Inc., 141 Idaho 716, 720 , 117 P.3d 130, 134 (2005) (quoting MDS Invs., L.L.C. v. State, 138 Idaho 456, 465 , 65 P.3d 197, 206 (2003)). | 1 | 1 |
Eighteen Mile Ranch, LLC v. Nord Excavating & Paving, Inc.green2 sentences2020“A party claiming attorney’s fees must assert the specific statute, rule, or case authority for its claim.” Eighteen Mile Ranch, LLC v. Nord Excavating & Paving, Inc., 141 Idaho 716, 720 , 117 P.3d 130, 134 (2005) (quoting MDS Invs., L.L.C. v. State, 138 Idaho 456, 465 , 65 P.3d 197, 206 (2003)). 2020“A party claiming attorney’s fees must assert the specific statute, rule, or case authority for its claim.” Eighteen Mile Ranch, LLC v. Nord Excavating & Paving, Inc., 141 Idaho 716, 720 , 117 P.3d 130, 134 (2005) (quoting MDS Invs., L.L.C. v. State, 138 Idaho 456, 465 , 65 P.3d 197, 206 (2003)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hoskinsgreen2 sentences2020“When reviewing a case on petition for review from the Court of Appeals this Court gives due consideration to the decision reached by the Court of Appeals, but directly reviews the decision of the trial court.” State v. Hoskins, 165 Idaho 217, 220 , 443 P.3d 231, 234 (2019) (citations omitted). 2020“When reviewing a case on petition for review from the Court of Appeals this Court gives due consideration to the decision reached by the Court of Appeals, but directly reviews the decision of the trial court.” State v. Hoskins, 165 Idaho 217, 220 , 443 P.3d 231, 234 (2019) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ciccarello v. Davies
green
2 sentences2025The Trusts argue that we should reverse the district court’s decision because it failed to provide any reasoning for why it denied the Trusts’ second motion to continue and incorrectly relied on Ciccarello v. Davies, 166 Idaho 153 , 456 P.3d 519 (2019), instead of the factors laid out in Gordon v. U.S. Bank National Association, 166 Idaho 105 , 455 P.3d 374 (2019). 2025The Trusts argue that we should reverse the district court’s decision because it failed to provide any reasoning for why it denied the Trusts’ second motion to continue and incorrectly relied on Ciccarello v. Davies, 166 Idaho 153 , 456 P.3d 519 (2019), instead of the factors laid out in Gordon v. U.S. Bank National Association, 166 Idaho 105 , 455 P.3d 374 (2019). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Hooley
green
2 sentences2024Hooley, 166 Idaho at 419 , 460 P.3d at 343 . 2024Hooley, 166 Idaho at 419 , 460 P.3d at 343 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Tiffany Ann Marie Fragnella v. Robert B. Petrovich, Jr.
green
2 sentences2022Although the denial of the motion for reconsideration is subject to an abuse of discretion standard, Fragnella, 153 Idaho at 276 , 281 P.3d at 113 , Riverside did not address any of the Lunneborg factors or make any other cogent argument as to how the district court abused its discretion in its opening brief. 2022Although the denial of the motion for reconsideration is subject to an abuse of discretion standard, Fragnella, 153 Idaho at 276 , 281 P.3d at 113 , Riverside did not address any of the Lunneborg factors or make any other cogent argument as to how the district court abused its discretion in its opening brief. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Bodenbach
green
2 sentences2020Accordingly, this analysis will focus on whether the district court “reached its decision by the exercise of reason.” Bodenbach, 165 Idaho at 591 , 448 P.3d at 1019 (quoting Lunneborg, 163 Idaho at 863, 421 P.3d at 194 ). 2020Accordingly, this analysis will focus on whether the district court “reached its decision by the exercise of reason.” Bodenbach, 165 Idaho at 591 , 448 P.3d at 1019 (quoting Lunneborg, 163 Idaho at 863, 421 P.3d at 194 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.