22 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2024 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Noh v. Cenarrusagreen2 sentences2024Under the traditional ripeness test, a plaintiff or petitioner must prove “1) that the case presents definite and concrete issues, 2) that a real and substantial controversy exists, and 3) that there is a present need for adjudication.” Noh v. Cenarrusa, 137 Idaho 798, 801 , 53 P.3d 1217, 1220 (2002) (citing Boundary Backpackers v. Boundary Cnty., 128 Idaho 371, 376 , 913 P.2d 1141, 1146 (1996)); Keep the Commandments Coal., 143 Idaho at 256 , 141 P.3d at 1125 . 2024Under the traditional ripeness test, a plaintiff or petitioner must prove “1) that the case presents definite and concrete issues, 2) that a real and substantial controversy exists, and 3) that there is a present need for adjudication.” Noh v. Cenarrusa, 137 Idaho 798, 801 , 53 P.3d 1217, 1220 (2002) (citing Boundary Backpackers v. Boundary Cnty., 128 Idaho 371, 376 , 913 P.2d 1141, 1146 (1996)); Keep the Commandments Coal., 143 Idaho at 256 , 141 P.3d at 1125 . | 12 | 15 |
State v. Manleygreen2 sentences2024“The purpose of the ripeness requirement is to prevent courts from entangling themselves in purely abstract disagreements.” Id. (emphasis in original) (quoting State v. Manley, 142 Idaho 338, 342 , 127 P.3d 954, 958 (2005)). 2024“The purpose of the ripeness requirement is to prevent courts from entangling themselves in purely abstract disagreements.” Id. (emphasis in original) (quoting State v. Manley, 142 Idaho 338, 342 , 127 P.3d 954, 958 (2005)). | 6 | 7 |
Boundary Backpackers v. Boundary Countygreen2 sentences2024Under the traditional ripeness test, a plaintiff or petitioner must prove “1) that the case presents definite and concrete issues, 2) that a real and substantial controversy exists, and 3) that there is a present need for adjudication.” Noh v. Cenarrusa, 137 Idaho 798, 801 , 53 P.3d 1217, 1220 (2002) (citing Boundary Backpackers v. Boundary Cnty., 128 Idaho 371, 376 , 913 P.2d 1141, 1146 (1996)); Keep the Commandments Coal., 143 Idaho at 256 , 141 P.3d at 1125 . 2024Under the traditional ripeness test, a plaintiff or petitioner must prove “1) that the case presents definite and concrete issues, 2) that a real and substantial controversy exists, and 3) that there is a present need for adjudication.” Noh v. Cenarrusa, 137 Idaho 798, 801 , 53 P.3d 1217, 1220 (2002) (citing Boundary Backpackers v. Boundary Cnty., 128 Idaho 371, 376 , 913 P.2d 1141, 1146 (1996)); Keep the Commandments Coal., 143 Idaho at 256 , 141 P.3d at 1125 . | 5 | 5 |
Miles v. Idaho Power Co. Ex Rel. Evansgreen2 sentences2017Noh v. Cenarrusa, 137 Idaho 798, 801 , 53 P.3d 1217, 1220 (2002); Miles v. Idaho Power Co., 116 Idaho 635, 642 , 778 P.2d 757, 764 (1989). “[I]n many cases, ripeness coincides squarely with standing’s injury in fact prong.” Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134 , 1138 (9th Cir. 1999). 2017Noh v. Cenarrusa, 137 Idaho 798, 801 , 53 P.3d 1217, 1220 (2002); Miles v. Idaho Power Co., 116 Idaho 635, 642 , 778 P.2d 757, 764 (1989). “[I]n many cases, ripeness coincides squarely with standing’s injury in fact prong.” Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134 , 1138 (9th Cir. 1999). | 3 | 3 |
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardnerred2 sentences2023“The purpose of the ripeness requirement is to prevent courts from entangling themselves in purely abstract disagreements.” State v. Manley, 142 Idaho 338, 342 , 127 P.3d 954, 958 (2005) (emphasis added) (citing Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148 (1967)). 2017Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148 [ 87 S.Ct. 1507, 1515 , 18 L.Ed.2d 681, 691 ] (1967). | 2 | 3 |
Boe v. Boegreen2 sentences2024In contrast, “[a]n issue becomes moot if it does not present a real and substantial controversy that is capable of being concluded through judicial decree of specific relief.” Boe v. Boe, 163 Idaho 922 , 927, 422 P.3d 1128, 1133 (2018) (quoting Nampa Educ. 2024In contrast, “[a]n issue becomes moot if it does not present a real and substantial controversy that is capable of being concluded through judicial decree of specific relief.” Boe v. Boe, 163 Idaho 922 , 927, 422 P.3d 1128, 1133 (2018) (quoting Nampa Educ. | 2 | 2 |
Ipaddison Scenic Properties, Family Trust, L.C. v. Idaho Countygreen2 sentences2014“The traditional ripeness doctrine requires a petitioner or plaintiff to prove 1) that the case presents definite and concrete issues, 2) that a real and substantial controversy exists, and 3) that there is a present need for adjudication.” Paddison Scenic Props., Family Trust, L.C. v. Idaho Cnty., 153 Idaho 1, 4 , 278 P.3d 403, 406 (2012) (quoting Noh v. Cenarrusa, 137 Idaho 798, 801 , 53 P.3d 1217, 1220 (2002)). 2014“The traditional ripeness doctrine requires a petitioner or plaintiff to prove 1) that the case presents definite and concrete issues, 2) that a real and substantial controversy exists, and 3) that there is a present need for adjudication.” Paddison Scenic Props., Family Trust, L.C. v. Idaho Cnty., 153 Idaho 1, 4 , 278 P.3d 403, 406 (2012) (quoting Noh v. Cenarrusa, 137 Idaho 798, 801 , 53 P.3d 1217, 1220 (2002)). | 2 | 2 |
Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson Cityred2 sentences2013In its decision, the district court found that both federal claims are unripe under the two-prong ripeness test in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 186 , 105 S.Ct. 3108, 3116 , 87 L.Ed.2d 126, 138-39 (1985). 2013In its decision, the district court found that both federal claims are unripe under the two-prong ripeness test in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 186 , 105 S.Ct. 3108, 3116 , 87 L.Ed.2d 126, 138-39 (1985). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Davidson v. Wright
green
2 sentences2024“The purpose of the ripeness requirement is to prevent courts from entangling themselves in purely abstract disagreements.” Id. (emphasis in original) (quoting State v. Manley, 142 Idaho 338, 342 , 127 P.3d 954, 958 (2005)). 2024“The purpose of the ripeness requirement is to prevent courts from entangling themselves in purely abstract disagreements.” Id. (emphasis in original) (quoting State v. Manley, 142 Idaho 338, 342 , 127 P.3d 954, 958 (2005)). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
City of Boise City v. Keep the Commandments Coalition
green
2 sentences2024Under the traditional ripeness test, a plaintiff or petitioner must prove “1) that the case presents definite and concrete issues, 2) that a real and substantial controversy exists, and 3) that there is a present need for adjudication.” Noh v. Cenarrusa, 137 Idaho 798, 801 , 53 P.3d 1217, 1220 (2002) (citing Boundary Backpackers v. Boundary Cnty., 128 Idaho 371, 376 , 913 P.2d 1141, 1146 (1996)); Keep the Commandments Coal., 143 Idaho at 256 , 141 P.3d at 1125 . 2024Under the traditional ripeness test, a plaintiff or petitioner must prove “1) that the case presents definite and concrete issues, 2) that a real and substantial controversy exists, and 3) that there is a present need for adjudication.” Noh v. Cenarrusa, 137 Idaho 798, 801 , 53 P.3d 1217, 1220 (2002) (citing Boundary Backpackers v. Boundary Cnty., 128 Idaho 371, 376 , 913 P.2d 1141, 1146 (1996)); Keep the Commandments Coal., 143 Idaho at 256 , 141 P.3d at 1125 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
cluster 769722
green
1 sentence2017Noh v. Cenarrusa, 137 Idaho 798, 801 , 53 P.3d 1217, 1220 (2002); Miles v. Idaho Power Co., 116 Idaho 635, 642 , 778 P.2d 757, 764 (1989). “[I]n many cases, ripeness coincides squarely with standing’s injury in fact prong.” Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134 , 1138 (9th Cir. 1999). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.