21 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1897–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
William v. Cenarrusagreen2 sentences2024The Court in Farm Credit Bank never claimed to be establishing a new rule regarding the award of attorney fees; instead, it attempted to apply “the so-called ‘American rule,’ ” which it claimed meant that “attorney fees are created only by statute or contract, and that Rule 54(e) neither creates a right to attorney fees, nor diminishes any right created by statute or contract.” Farm Credit Bank, 122 Idaho at 569 n.4, 836 P.2d at 515 n.4 (first citing I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1)–(5); then citing Hellar, 106 Idaho 571 , 682 P.2d 524 ; and then citing Idaho Power Co., 102 Idaho at 750 , 639 P.2d at 448 ). 2024The Court in Farm Credit Bank never claimed to be establishing a new rule regarding the award of attorney fees; instead, it attempted to apply “the so-called ‘American rule,’ ” which it claimed meant that “attorney fees are created only by statute or contract, and that Rule 54(e) neither creates a right to attorney fees, nor diminishes any right created by statute or contract.” Farm Credit Bank, 122 Idaho at 569 n.4, 836 P.2d at 515 n.4 (first citing I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1)–(5); then citing Hellar, 106 Idaho 571 , 682 P.2d 524 ; and then citing Idaho Power Co., 102 Idaho at 750 , 639 P.2d at 448 ). | 8 | 9 |
Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co.green2 sentences2016JONES CONCURS. 10 The United States Supreme Court recognized in 1967 that “[i]n support of the American rule, it has been argued that since litigation is at best uncertain one should not be penalized for merely defending or prosecuting a lawsuit, and that the poor might be unjustly discouraged from instituting actions to vindicate their rights if the penalty for losing included the fees of their opponents’ counsel.” Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U.S. 714, 718 (1967). 2016JONES CONCURS. 10 The United States Supreme Court recognized in 1967 that “[i]n support of the American rule, it has been argued that since litigation is at best uncertain one should not be penalized for merely defending or prosecuting a lawsuit, and that the poor might be unjustly discouraged from instituting actions to vindicate their rights if the penalty for losing included the fees of their opponents’ counsel.” Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U.S. 714, 718 (1967). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. One 1972 Chevrolet Vangreen2 sentences1994See also Commonwealth v. One 1972 Chevrolet Van, 385 Mass. 198 , 431 N.E.2d 209 (1982) (citing general English and American rule to support the holding that there existed a right to jury trial at common law and that right was preserved). 1994See also Commonwealth v. One 1972 Chevrolet Van, 385 Mass. 198 , 431 N.E.2d 209 (1982) (citing general English and American rule to support the holding that there existed a right to jury trial at common law and that right was preserved). | 2 | 2 |
Great Plains Equipment, Inc. v. Northwest Pipeline Corp.green2 sentences2003Great Plains Equip., Inc. v. Northwest Pipeline Corp., 132 Idaho 754, 771 , 979 P.2d 627, 644 (1999); State ex rel. 2003Great Plains Equip., Inc. v. Northwest Pipeline Corp., 132 Idaho 754, 771 , 979 P.2d 627, 644 (1999); State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Idaho Department of Law Enforcement Ex Rel. Cade v. Real Property Located Within Kootenai Countygreen2 sentences1999Idaho Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Kluss, 125 Idaho 682, 684 , 873 P.2d 1336, 1338 (1994); see also I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1). 1999Idaho Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Kluss, 125 Idaho 682, 684 , 873 P.2d 1336, 1338 (1994); see also I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1). | 1 | 1 |
Mecham v. Nelsongreen2 sentences1992E.g., Hellar v. Cenarrusa, 106 Idaho 571, 578 , 682 P.2d 524, 531 (1984) ("We continue to adhere to the so-called `American rule' to the effect that attorney fees are to be awarded only where they are authorized by statute or contract."); Kidwell & Heiser v. Fenley, 96 Idaho 534 , 531 P.2d 1179 (1975); Mecham v. Nelson, 92 Idaho 783, 789 , 451 P.2d 529, 535 (1969). 1992E.g., Hellar v. Cenarrusa, 106 Idaho 571, 578 , 682 P.2d 524, 531 (1984) ("We continue to adhere to the so-called `American rule' to the effect that attorney fees are to be awarded only where they are authorized by statute or contract."); Kidwell & Heiser v. Fenley, 96 Idaho 534 , 531 P.2d 1179 (1975); Mecham v. Nelson, 92 Idaho 783, 789 , 451 P.2d 529, 535 (1969). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Koelker v. Turnbullgreen2 sentences1996But see Koelker v. Turnbull, 127 Idaho 262, 266 , 899 P.2d 972, 976 (1995) (upholding the inclusion of attorney fees for quieting title in a damage award for breach of covenant of title). 1996But see Koelker v. Turnbull, 127 Idaho 262, 266 , 899 P.2d 972, 976 (1995) (upholding the inclusion of attorney fees for quieting title in a damage award for breach of covenant of title). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Idaho Power Co. v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission
green
2 sentences2024The Court in Farm Credit Bank never claimed to be establishing a new rule regarding the award of attorney fees; instead, it attempted to apply “the so-called ‘American rule,’ ” which it claimed meant that “attorney fees are created only by statute or contract, and that Rule 54(e) neither creates a right to attorney fees, nor diminishes any right created by statute or contract.” Farm Credit Bank, 122 Idaho at 569 n.4, 836 P.2d at 515 n.4 (first citing I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1)–(5); then citing Hellar, 106 Idaho 571 , 682 P.2d 524 ; and then citing Idaho Power Co., 102 Idaho at 750 , 639 P.2d at 448 ). 2024The Court in Farm Credit Bank never claimed to be establishing a new rule regarding the award of attorney fees; instead, it attempted to apply “the so-called ‘American rule,’ ” which it claimed meant that “attorney fees are created only by statute or contract, and that Rule 54(e) neither creates a right to attorney fees, nor diminishes any right created by statute or contract.” Farm Credit Bank, 122 Idaho at 569 n.4, 836 P.2d at 515 n.4 (first citing I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1)–(5); then citing Hellar, 106 Idaho 571 , 682 P.2d 524 ; and then citing Idaho Power Co., 102 Idaho at 750 , 639 P.2d at 448 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Farm Credit Bank of Spokane v. Wissel
green
2 sentences2024The Court in Farm Credit Bank never claimed to be establishing a new rule regarding the award of attorney fees; instead, it attempted to apply “the so-called ‘American rule,’ ” which it claimed meant that “attorney fees are created only by statute or contract, and that Rule 54(e) neither creates a right to attorney fees, nor diminishes any right created by statute or contract.” Farm Credit Bank, 122 Idaho at 569 n.4, 836 P.2d at 515 n.4 (first citing I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1)–(5); then citing Hellar, 106 Idaho 571 , 682 P.2d 524 ; and then citing Idaho Power Co., 102 Idaho at 750 , 639 P.2d at 448 ). 2024The Court in Farm Credit Bank never claimed to be establishing a new rule regarding the award of attorney fees; instead, it attempted to apply “the so-called ‘American rule,’ ” which it claimed meant that “attorney fees are created only by statute or contract, and that Rule 54(e) neither creates a right to attorney fees, nor diminishes any right created by statute or contract.” Farm Credit Bank, 122 Idaho at 569 n.4, 836 P.2d at 515 n.4 (first citing I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1)–(5); then citing Hellar, 106 Idaho 571 , 682 P.2d 524 ; and then citing Idaho Power Co., 102 Idaho at 750 , 639 P.2d at 448 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Kidwell & Heiser v. Fenley
green
2 sentences1992E.g., Hellar v. Cenarrusa, 106 Idaho 571, 578 , 682 P.2d 524, 531 (1984) ("We continue to adhere to the so-called `American rule' to the effect that attorney fees are to be awarded only where they are authorized by statute or contract."); Kidwell & Heiser v. Fenley, 96 Idaho 534 , 531 P.2d 1179 (1975); Mecham v. Nelson, 92 Idaho 783, 789 , 451 P.2d 529, 535 (1969). 1992E.g., Hellar v. Cenarrusa, 106 Idaho 571, 578 , 682 P.2d 524, 531 (1984) ("We continue to adhere to the so-called `American rule' to the effect that attorney fees are to be awarded only where they are authorized by statute or contract."); Kidwell & Heiser v. Fenley, 96 Idaho 534 , 531 P.2d 1179 (1975); Mecham v. Nelson, 92 Idaho 783, 789 , 451 P.2d 529, 535 (1969). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Mahas v. Kasiska
green
2 sentences1990Mahas v. Kasiska, 47 Idaho 179 , 276 P. 315 (1928). 1990Mahas v. Kasiska, 47 Idaho 179 , 276 P. 315 (1928). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Burke v. Smith
green
2 sentences1973One of the first cases rejecting the older English view and announcing the new American rule on spite fences is Burke v. Smith, 69 Mich. 380 , 37 N.W. 838 (1888). 1973One of the first cases rejecting the older English view and announcing the new American rule on spite fences is Burke v. Smith, 69 Mich. 380 , 37 N.W. 838 (1888). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Jones v. Manhattan Horse Manure Co.
neutral
2 sentences1968Rex v. Hampreston, 5 T.R. 205, 101 Eng.Rep. 116 (1793); Huttman v. Boulnois, 2 Carr & P. 510, 172 Eng.Rep. 231 (1826) (old English rule); Jones v. Manhattan Horse Manure Co., 91 N.J.L. 406 , 103 A. 984 (1918); Lasser v. Grunbaum Bros Furniture Co., 46 Wash.2d 408 , 281 P.2d 832 (1955) (American rule); see generally Anno. 161 A.L.R. 706 (1946); Anno. 100 A.L.R. 834 (1936); Anno. 11 A.L.R. 469 (1921); Restatement (Second) of Agency, § 442 (1958); W. 1968Rex v. Hampreston, 5 T.R. 205, 101 Eng.Rep. 116 (1793); Huttman v. Boulnois, 2 Carr & P. 510, 172 Eng.Rep. 231 (1826) (old English rule); Jones v. Manhattan Horse Manure Co., 91 N.J.L. 406 , 103 A. 984 (1918); Lasser v. Grunbaum Bros Furniture Co., 46 Wash.2d 408 , 281 P.2d 832 (1955) (American rule); see generally Anno. 161 A.L.R. 706 (1946); Anno. 100 A.L.R. 834 (1936); Anno. 11 A.L.R. 469 (1921); Restatement (Second) of Agency, § 442 (1958); W. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Lasser v. Grunbaum Bros. Furniture Co.
green
2 sentences1968Rex v. Hampreston, 5 T.R. 205, 101 Eng.Rep. 116 (1793); Huttman v. Boulnois, 2 Carr & P. 510, 172 Eng.Rep. 231 (1826) (old English rule); Jones v. Manhattan Horse Manure Co., 91 N.J.L. 406 , 103 A. 984 (1918); Lasser v. Grunbaum Bros Furniture Co., 46 Wash.2d 408 , 281 P.2d 832 (1955) (American rule); see generally Anno. 161 A.L.R. 706 (1946); Anno. 100 A.L.R. 834 (1936); Anno. 11 A.L.R. 469 (1921); Restatement (Second) of Agency, § 442 (1958); W. 1968Rex v. Hampreston, 5 T.R. 205, 101 Eng.Rep. 116 (1793); Huttman v. Boulnois, 2 Carr & P. 510, 172 Eng.Rep. 231 (1826) (old English rule); Jones v. Manhattan Horse Manure Co., 91 N.J.L. 406 , 103 A. 984 (1918); Lasser v. Grunbaum Bros Furniture Co., 46 Wash.2d 408 , 281 P.2d 832 (1955) (American rule); see generally Anno. 161 A.L.R. 706 (1946); Anno. 100 A.L.R. 834 (1936); Anno. 11 A.L.R. 469 (1921); Restatement (Second) of Agency, § 442 (1958); W. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
McDonough v. Evans Marble Co.
neutral
1 sentence1915A. 462 , as follows: “The modern American rule seems to be that a party who has failed to perform in full his eontraet for the sale and delivery of personal property may recover compensation for the part actually delivered and received thereunder, less the damages occasioned by his failure to make the complete delivery. ’ ’ In the ease of McDonough v. Evans Marble Co., 112 Fed. 634 , 50 C. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
United States v. Sanges
green
2 sentences1897It is a more reasonable interpretation of provisions, obviously designed for the personal security of an accused person, to restrict the application of the term used to.the accused party against whom the judgment may have been rendered, and is in harmony with the uniform previous course of judicial procedure in all of the courts of the state.” The position taken by the supreme court of North Carolina is sustained by the supreme court of the United States in an able and exhaustive opinion in the case of United States v. Sanges, 144 U. S. 310 , 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 609, where the authorities are ful 1897It is a more reasonable interpretation of provisions, obviously designed for the personal security of an accused person, to restrict the application of the term used to.the accused party against whom the judgment may have been rendered, and is in harmony with the uniform previous course of judicial procedure in all of the courts of the state.” The position taken by the supreme court of North Carolina is sustained by the supreme court of the United States in an able and exhaustive opinion in the case of United States v. Sanges, 144 U. S. 310 , 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 609, where the authorities are ful | 1 | 1897–1897 |
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.