21 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2023 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miles v. Idaho Power Co. Ex Rel. Evansgreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., Miles v. Idaho Power Co., 116 Idaho 635, 641 , 778 P.2d 757, 763 (1989) (referring to “the case or controversy requirement of standing”). 2021See, e.g., Miles v. Idaho Power Co., 116 Idaho 635, 641 , 778 P.2d 757, 763 (1989) (referring to “the case or controversy requirement of standing”). | 6 | 11 |
Coeur d'Alene Tribe v. Lawerence Denneygreen2 sentences2020“Because the Idaho Constitution does not contain a strict case or controversy requirement—unlike the federal Constitution—the justiciability requirement is a ‘self-imposed constraint’ that may be relaxed in rare cases to guarantee ‘important constitutional provisions.’ ” Id. at 389, 430 P.3d at 1288 (citing Coeur d’Alene Tribe v. Denney, 161 Idaho 508, 513 , 387 P.3d 761, 766 (2015). 3 “For the reason that compensation is due at the time of taking, the owner at that time, not the owner at an earlier or later date, receives the payment.” Danforth v. United States, 308 U.S. 271, 284 (1939). 6 Th 2020“Because the Idaho Constitution does not contain a strict case or controversy requirement—unlike the federal Constitution—the justiciability requirement is a ‘self-imposed constraint’ that may be relaxed in rare cases to guarantee ‘important constitutional provisions.’ ” Id. at 389, 430 P.3d at 1288 (citing Coeur d’Alene Tribe v. Denney, 161 Idaho 508, 513 , 387 P.3d 761, 766 (2015). 3 “For the reason that compensation is due at the time of taking, the owner at that time, not the owner at an earlier or later date, receives the payment.” Danforth v. United States, 308 U.S. 271, 284 (1939). 6 Th | 5 | 7 |
Boundary Backpackers v. Boundary Countygreen2 sentences2023Each alone may not be enough to meet the threshold but collectively, the [c]ourt finds that there is an injury in fact.” “To satisfy the case or controversy requirement of standing, litigants generally must allege or demonstrate an injury in fact and a substantial likelihood that the judicial relief requested will prevent or redress the claimed injury.” Boundary Backpackers v. Boundary Cnty., 128 Idaho 371, 375 , 913 P.2d 1141, 1145 (1996). 2023Each alone may not be enough to meet the threshold but collectively, the [c]ourt finds that there is an injury in fact.” “To satisfy the case or controversy requirement of standing, litigants generally must allege or demonstrate an injury in fact and a substantial likelihood that the judicial relief requested will prevent or redress the claimed injury.” Boundary Backpackers v. Boundary Cnty., 128 Idaho 371, 375 , 913 P.2d 1141, 1145 (1996). | 4 | 5 |
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlifegreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (“Though some of [the federal standing] elements express merely prudential considerations that are part of judicial self-government, the core component of [federal] standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.”); 1 This Court observed in Bear Lake Educational Association, by and through Belnap v. Board of Trustees of Bear Lake School District No. 33, 116 Idaho 443, 448 , 776 P.2d 452, 457 (1989), that “some elements of standing in the federal system are colored by the constitu 2021See, e.g., Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (“Though some of [the federal standing] elements express merely prudential considerations that are part of judicial self-government, the core component of [federal] standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.”); 1 This Court observed in Bear Lake Educational Association, by and through Belnap v. Board of Trustees of Bear Lake School District No. 33, 116 Idaho 443, 448 , 776 P.2d 452, 457 (1989), that “some elements of standing in the federal system are colored by the constitu | 3 | 3 |
Bear Lake Education Ass'n v. Board of Trustees of Bear Lake School District No. 33green2 sentences2021See, e.g., Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (“Though some of [the federal standing] elements express merely prudential considerations that are part of judicial self-government, the core component of [federal] standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.”); 1 This Court observed in Bear Lake Educational Association, by and through Belnap v. Board of Trustees of Bear Lake School District No. 33, 116 Idaho 443, 448 , 776 P.2d 452, 457 (1989), that “some elements of standing in the federal system are colored by the constitu 2021See, e.g., Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (“Though some of [the federal standing] elements express merely prudential considerations that are part of judicial self-government, the core component of [federal] standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.”); 1 This Court observed in Bear Lake Educational Association, by and through Belnap v. Board of Trustees of Bear Lake School District No. 33, 116 Idaho 443, 448 , 776 P.2d 452, 457 (1989), that “some elements of standing in the federal system are colored by the constitu | 2 | 2 |
Danforth v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2020“Because the Idaho Constitution does not contain a strict case or controversy requirement—unlike the federal Constitution—the justiciability requirement is a ‘self-imposed constraint’ that may be relaxed in rare cases to guarantee ‘important constitutional provisions.’ ” Id. at 389, 430 P.3d at 1288 (citing Coeur d’Alene Tribe v. Denney, 161 Idaho 508, 513 , 387 P.3d 761, 766 (2015). 3 “For the reason that compensation is due at the time of taking, the owner at that time, not the owner at an earlier or later date, receives the payment.” Danforth v. United States, 308 U.S. 271, 284 (1939). 6 Th | 1 | 1 |
Young v. City of Ketchumgreen2 sentences2015This requires a showing of a distinct palpable injury and fairly traceable causal connection between the claimed injury and the challenged conduct. 137 Idaho 102, 104-105 , 44 P.3d 1157, 1159-1160 (2002) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 2015This requires a showing of a distinct palpable injury and fairly traceable causal connection between the claimed injury and the challenged conduct. 137 Idaho 102, 104-105 , 44 P.3d 1157, 1159-1160 (2002) (internal citations and quotations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Schneider v. Howegreen2 sentences2012Building upon these basic propositions, this Court also considers that standing “may be predicated upon a threatened harm as well as a past injury.” Schneider v. Howe, 142 Idaho 767, 772 , 133 P.3d 1232, 1237 (2006). 2012Building upon these basic propositions, this Court also considers that standing “may be predicated upon a threatened harm as well as a past injury.” Schneider v. Howe, 142 Idaho 767, 772 , 133 P.3d 1232, 1237 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
Thomson v. City of Lewistongreen2 sentences2010Thompson v. City of Lewiston, 137 Idaho 473, 477 , 50 P.3d 488, 492 (2002). 2010Thompson v. City of Lewiston, 137 Idaho 473, 477 , 50 P.3d 488, 492 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
Selkirk-Priest Basin Ass'n v. State ex rel. Battgreen2 sentences2000In order to satisfy the case or controversy requirement of standing, a litigant must "allege or demonstrate an injury in fact and a substantial likelihood that the judicial relief requested will prevent or redress the claimed injury." Miles, 116 Idaho at 641 , 778 P.2d at 763 ; see also Boundary Backpackers v. Boundary County, 128 Idaho 371, 375 , 913 P.2d 1141, 1145 (1996); Selkirk-Priest *1133 Basin Ass'n v. State, 128 Idaho 831, 833-34 , 919 P.2d 1032, 1034-35 (1996). 2000In order to satisfy the case or controversy requirement of standing, a litigant must "allege or demonstrate an injury in fact and a substantial likelihood that the judicial relief requested will prevent or redress the claimed injury." Miles, 116 Idaho at 641 , 778 P.2d at 763 ; see also Boundary Backpackers v. Boundary County, 128 Idaho 371, 375 , 913 P.2d 1141, 1145 (1996); Selkirk-Priest *1133 Basin Ass'n v. State, 128 Idaho 831, 833-34 , 919 P.2d 1032, 1034-35 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dea Haight v. Idaho Dept of Transportation
green
2 sentences2020“To satisfy the case or controversy requirement of standing, a litigant must allege or demonstrate an injury in fact and a substantial likelihood the judicial relief requested will prevent or redress the claimed injury.” Id. at 391, 414 P.3d at 213 . 2020“This requires a showing of distinct palpable injury and fairly traceable causal connection between the claimed injury and the challenged conduct.” Id. at 392, 414 P.3d at 214 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Westover v. Idaho Counties Risk Mgmt. Program
green
1 sentence2020“Because the Idaho Constitution does not contain a strict case or controversy requirement—unlike the federal Constitution—the justiciability requirement is a ‘self-imposed constraint’ that may be relaxed in rare cases to guarantee ‘important constitutional provisions.’ ” Id. at 389, 430 P.3d at 1288 (citing Coeur d’Alene Tribe v. Denney, 161 Idaho 508, 513 , 387 P.3d 761, 766 (2015). 3 “For the reason that compensation is due at the time of taking, the owner at that time, not the owner at an earlier or later date, receives the payment.” Danforth v. United States, 308 U.S. 271, 284 (1939). 6 Th | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences1989Id. at 79 , 98 S.Ct. at 2633 . 1989Id. at 79 , 98 S.Ct. at 2633 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.