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.
19 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Doegreen2 sentences2017“In an action to terminate parental rights, where the trial court has explicitly determined the case by application of the clear and convincing evidentiary standard, this Court must determine if the decision was supported by substantial and competent evidence.” In re Doe, 146 Idaho 759, 761 , 203 P.3d 689, 691 (2009). 2013Russ Ballard & Family Achievement Inst. v. Lava Hot Springs Resort, Inc., 97 Idaho 572, 579 , 548 P.2d 72, 79 (1976). “[W]here the trial court has explicitly determined the case by application of the clear and convincing evidentiary standard, this Court must determine if the decision was supported by substantial and competent evidence.” In re Doe, 146 Idaho 759, 761 , 203 P.3d 689, 691 (2009). | 7 | 7 |
State v. Doegreen2 sentences2010This requirement necessitates the State prove the grounds for terminating a parent-child relationship by clear and convincing evidence.” In re Doe, 143 Idaho 343, 345 , 144 P.3d 597, 599 (2006) (internal citation omitted). “[W]here the trial court has explicitly determined the case by application of the clear and convincing evidentiary standard, this Court must determine if the decision was supported by substantial and competent evidence.” In re Doe, 146 Idaho 759, 761 , 203 P.3d 689, 691 (2009). 2010This requirement necessitates the State prove the grounds for terminating a parent-child relationship by clear and convincing evidence.” In re Doe, 143 Idaho 343, 345 , 144 P.3d 597, 599 (2006) (internal citation omitted). “[W]here the trial court has explicitly determined the case by application of the clear and convincing evidentiary standard, this Court must determine if the decision was supported by substantial and competent evidence.” In re Doe, 146 Idaho 759, 761 , 203 P.3d 689, 691 (2009). | 6 | 7 |
State v. Doegreen2 sentences2018State v. Doe , 144 Idaho 534 , 535, 164 P.3d 814 , 815 (2007) (citing CASI Found., Inc. v. Doe , 142 Idaho 397 , 399, 128 P.3d 934 , 936 (2006) ). 2018State v. Doe , 144 Idaho 534 , 535, 164 P.3d 814 , 815 (2007) (citing CASI Found., Inc. v. Doe , 142 Idaho 397 , 399, 128 P.3d 934 , 936 (2006) ). | 5 | 6 |
CASI Foundation, Inc. v. Doegreen2 sentences2018State v. Doe , 144 Idaho 534 , 535, 164 P.3d 814 , 815 (2007) (citing CASI Found., Inc. v. Doe , 142 Idaho 397 , 399, 128 P.3d 934 , 936 (2006) ). 2018State v. Doe , 144 Idaho 534 , 535, 164 P.3d 814 , 815 (2007) (citing CASI Found., Inc. v. Doe , 142 Idaho 397 , 399, 128 P.3d 934 , 936 (2006) ). | 5 | 6 |
Jordan v. Huntergreen2 sentences2020See Jordan, 124 Idaho at 907 , 865 P.2d at 998 ; see also Bolt v. Influence, Inc., 43 P.3d 425 , 427–29 (Or. 2002) (holding that the trial court erred using a clear and convincing evidentiary standard to review the sufficiency of the evidence). 2020See Jordan, 124 Idaho at 907 , 865 P.2d at 998 ; see also Bolt v. Influence, Inc., 43 P.3d 425 , 427–29 (Or. 2002) (holding that the trial court erred using a clear and convincing evidentiary standard to review the sufficiency of the evidence). | 1 | 1 |
Bolt v. Influence, Inc.green1 sentence2020See Jordan, 124 Idaho at 907 , 865 P.2d at 998 ; see also Bolt v. Influence, Inc., 43 P.3d 425 , 427–29 (Or. 2002) (holding that the trial court erred using a clear and convincing evidentiary standard to review the sufficiency of the evidence). | 1 | 1 |
Castro v. State, Department of Health & Welfaregreen2 sentences2017“Substantial competent evidence is ‘such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Id. (quoting In re Doe, 143 Idaho 343 , 345–46, 144 P.3d 597 , 599–600 (2006)). “‘[T]his Court will indulge all reasonable inferences in support of the trial court’s judgment’ when reviewing an order that parental rights be terminated.” Matter of Aragon, 120 Idaho 606, 608 , 818 P.2d 310, 312 (1991) (quoting In Interest of Castro, 102 Idaho 218, 221 , 628 P.2d 1052, 1055 (1981)). 2017“Substantial competent evidence is ‘such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Id. (quoting In re Doe, 143 Idaho 343 , 345–46, 144 P.3d 597 , 599–600 (2006)). “‘[T]his Court will indulge all reasonable inferences in support of the trial court’s judgment’ when reviewing an order that parental rights be terminated.” Matter of Aragon, 120 Idaho 606, 608 , 818 P.2d 310, 312 (1991) (quoting In Interest of Castro, 102 Idaho 218, 221 , 628 P.2d 1052, 1055 (1981)). | 1 | 1 |
Tanner v. State, Department of Health & Welfaregreen2 sentences2017“Substantial competent evidence is ‘such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Id. (quoting In re Doe, 143 Idaho 343 , 345–46, 144 P.3d 597 , 599–600 (2006)). “‘[T]his Court will indulge all reasonable inferences in support of the trial court’s judgment’ when reviewing an order that parental rights be terminated.” Matter of Aragon, 120 Idaho 606, 608 , 818 P.2d 310, 312 (1991) (quoting In Interest of Castro, 102 Idaho 218, 221 , 628 P.2d 1052, 1055 (1981)). 2017“Substantial competent evidence is ‘such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Id. (quoting In re Doe, 143 Idaho 343 , 345–46, 144 P.3d 597 , 599–600 (2006)). “‘[T]his Court will indulge all reasonable inferences in support of the trial court’s judgment’ when reviewing an order that parental rights be terminated.” Matter of Aragon, 120 Idaho 606, 608 , 818 P.2d 310, 312 (1991) (quoting In Interest of Castro, 102 Idaho 218, 221 , 628 P.2d 1052, 1055 (1981)). | 1 | 1 |
Russ Ballard & Family Achievement Institute v. Lava Hot Springs Resort, Inc.green2 sentences2013Russ Ballard & Family Achievement Inst. v. Lava Hot Springs Resort, Inc., 97 Idaho 572, 579 , 548 P.2d 72, 79 (1976). “[W]here the trial court has explicitly determined the case by application of the clear and convincing evidentiary standard, this Court must determine if the decision was supported by substantial and competent evidence.” In re Doe, 146 Idaho 759, 761 , 203 P.3d 689, 691 (2009). 2013Russ Ballard & Family Achievement Inst. v. Lava Hot Springs Resort, Inc., 97 Idaho 572, 579 , 548 P.2d 72, 79 (1976). “[W]here the trial court has explicitly determined the case by application of the clear and convincing evidentiary standard, this Court must determine if the decision was supported by substantial and competent evidence.” In re Doe, 146 Idaho 759, 761 , 203 P.3d 689, 691 (2009). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Doe v. Department of Health & Welfare
green
2 sentences2017“In an action to terminate parental rights, where the trial court has explicitly determined the case by application of the clear and convincing evidentiary standard, this Court must determine if the decision was supported by substantial and competent evidence.” In re Doe, 146 Idaho 759, 761 , 203 P.3d 689, 691 (2009). 2013Russ Ballard & Family Achievement Inst. v. Lava Hot Springs Resort, Inc., 97 Idaho 572, 579 , 548 P.2d 72, 79 (1976). “[W]here the trial court has explicitly determined the case by application of the clear and convincing evidentiary standard, this Court must determine if the decision was supported by substantial and competent evidence.” In re Doe, 146 Idaho 759, 761 , 203 P.3d 689, 691 (2009). | 8 | 2010–2017 |
Department of Health and Welfare v. Doe
green
2 sentences2019On appeal, "the appellate court does not reweigh the evidence to determine if it was clear and convincing." Doe , 149 Idaho at 210 , 233 P.3d at 141 . 2019On appeal, "the appellate court does not reweigh the evidence to determine if it was clear and convincing." Doe , 149 Idaho at 210 , 233 P.3d at 141 . | 3 | 2018–2019 |
Roe v. Doe
green
2 sentences2019The clear and convincing evidentiary standard is met when there is "[e]vidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain." In re Adoption of Doe , 143 Idaho 188 , 191, 141 P.3d 1057 , 1060 (2006) (quoting BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 577 (7th ed. 1999)). 2019The clear and convincing evidentiary standard is met when there is “[e]vidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain.” In re Adoption of Doe, 143 Idaho 188, 191 , 141 P.3d 1057 , 1060 (2006) (quoting BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 577 (7th ed. 1999)). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
In Re Adoption of Doe
green
2 sentences2019The clear and convincing evidentiary standard is met when there is "[e]vidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain." In re Adoption of Doe , 143 Idaho 188 , 191, 141 P.3d 1057 , 1060 (2006) (quoting BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 577 (7th ed. 1999)). 2019The clear and convincing evidentiary standard is met when there is “[e]vidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain.” In re Adoption of Doe, 143 Idaho 188, 191 , 141 P.3d 1057 , 1060 (2006) (quoting BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 577 (7th ed. 1999)). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
In re the Termination of the Parental Rights of DOE (2014-09)
green
2 sentences2018On appeal, "the appellate court does not reweigh the evidence to determine if it was clear and convincing." In re Doe (2014-09) , 157 Idaho 14 , 18, 333 P.3d 125 , 129 (2014) (quoting Dep't of Health and Welfare v. Doe , 149 Idaho 207 , 210, 233 P.3d 138 , 141 (2010) ). 2018On appeal, "the appellate court does not reweigh the evidence to determine if it was clear and convincing." In re Doe (2014-09) , 157 Idaho 14 , 18, 333 P.3d 125 , 129 (2014) (quoting Dep't of Health and Welfare v. Doe , 149 Idaho 207 , 210, 233 P.3d 138 , 141 (2010) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe (In Re Doe)
green
1 sentence2018As generally understood, the clear and convincing evidentiary standard is met when there is "evidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain." Doe Children , 163 Idaho 536 , 538, 415 P.3d 945 , 947 (2018) (quoting Idaho Dep't of Health and Welfare v. Doe (2015-01) , 158 Idaho 764 , 767, 351 P.3d 1222 , 1225 (2015) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Idaho Department of Health & Welfare Ex Rel. Doe v. Doe
green
2 sentences2018As generally understood, the clear and convincing evidentiary standard is met when there is "evidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain." Doe Children , 163 Idaho 536 , 538, 415 P.3d 945 , 947 (2018) (quoting Idaho Dep't of Health and Welfare v. Doe (2015-01) , 158 Idaho 764 , 767, 351 P.3d 1222 , 1225 (2015) ). 2018As generally understood, the clear and convincing evidentiary standard is met when there is "evidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain." Doe Children , 163 Idaho 536 , 538, 415 P.3d 945 , 947 (2018) (quoting Idaho Dep't of Health and Welfare v. Doe (2015-01) , 158 Idaho 764 , 767, 351 P.3d 1222 , 1225 (2015) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Washington v. Harper
green
2 sentences1991Cf. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 , 110 S.Ct. 1028 , 108 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990). 1991Cf. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 , 110 S.Ct. 1028 , 108 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.