minority rule (Idaho) · Go Syfert
← Idaho issues

minority rule in Idaho

19 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1932–2019 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
South Fork Coalition v. Board of Commissionersgreen
idaho · 1990 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009See South Fork Coalition, 117 Idaho at 861 , 792 P.2d at 886 .

2009See South Fork Coalition, 117 Idaho at 861 , 792 P.2d at 886 .

22
Aetna Life Insurance Company v. McLaughlingreen
tex · 1964 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979
1 sentence

1979Co. v. McLaughlin, supra at 106, it was stated: “In our opinion, the minority rule would lead to confusion and attempts by courts to define varying degrees or aspects of insanity. * * * The broader exclusion afforded to the exclusionary clause by the majority rule is in no way obnoxious to public policy. * * * [F]urther, and of most importance, we think the majority construction gives to the clause, in light of its history, the plain common sense meaning of the words employed.” See Atkinson v. Life Ins.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (29)

CaseCitedYears
Penrose v. Commercial Travelers Insurance Co. green
idaho · 1954
2 sentences

2013Id. at 538-39 , 275 P.2d at 977-78 .

2013Id. at 538-39 , 275 P.2d at 977-78 .

22013–2013
Kenney v. Antonetti green
cal · 1931
2 sentences

1932(See, also, Poth v. Dexter Horton Estate , 140 Wn. 272 , 248 P. 374 ; Kenney v. Antonetti , 211 Cal. 336 , 295 P. 341 ; Wright v. Southern Counties Gas Co. , 102 Cal.App. 656 , 283 P. 823 ; Davis v. Brown , 92 Cal.App. 20 , 267 P. 754 .) Wilbur v. Home Lumber etc. Co. , 131 Or. 180 , 282 P. 236 , criticises the above case ( Davis v. Brown ), and says it states the minority rule, relying on Berry on Automobiles, 6th ed., sec. 249.

1932(See, also, Poth v. Dexter Horton Estate , 140 Wn. 272 , 248 P. 374 ; Kenney v. Antonetti , 211 Cal. 336 , 295 P. 341 ; Wright v. Southern Counties Gas Co. , 102 Cal.App. 656 , 283 P. 823 ; Davis v. Brown , 92 Cal.App. 20 , 267 P. 754 .) Wilbur v. Home Lumber etc. Co. , 131 Or. 180 , 282 P. 236 , criticises the above case ( Davis v. Brown ), and says it states the minority rule, relying on Berry on Automobiles, 6th ed., sec. 249.

21932–1932
Poth v. Dexter Horton Estate neutral
wash · 1926
2 sentences

1932(See, also, Poth v. Dexter Horton Estate , 140 Wn. 272 , 248 P. 374 ; Kenney v. Antonetti , 211 Cal. 336 , 295 P. 341 ; Wright v. Southern Counties Gas Co. , 102 Cal.App. 656 , 283 P. 823 ; Davis v. Brown , 92 Cal.App. 20 , 267 P. 754 .) Wilbur v. Home Lumber etc. Co. , 131 Or. 180 , 282 P. 236 , criticises the above case ( Davis v. Brown ), and says it states the minority rule, relying on Berry on Automobiles, 6th ed., sec. 249.

1932(See, also, Poth v. Dexter Horton Estate , 140 Wn. 272 , 248 P. 374 ; Kenney v. Antonetti , 211 Cal. 336 , 295 P. 341 ; Wright v. Southern Counties Gas Co. , 102 Cal.App. 656 , 283 P. 823 ; Davis v. Brown , 92 Cal.App. 20 , 267 P. 754 .) Wilbur v. Home Lumber etc. Co. , 131 Or. 180 , 282 P. 236 , criticises the above case ( Davis v. Brown ), and says it states the minority rule, relying on Berry on Automobiles, 6th ed., sec. 249.

21932–1932
Wright v. Southern Counties Gas Co. neutral
calctapp · 1929
2 sentences

1932(See, also, Poth v. Dexter Horton Estate , 140 Wn. 272 , 248 P. 374 ; Kenney v. Antonetti , 211 Cal. 336 , 295 P. 341 ; Wright v. Southern Counties Gas Co. , 102 Cal.App. 656 , 283 P. 823 ; Davis v. Brown , 92 Cal.App. 20 , 267 P. 754 .) Wilbur v. Home Lumber etc. Co. , 131 Or. 180 , 282 P. 236 , criticises the above case ( Davis v. Brown ), and says it states the minority rule, relying on Berry on Automobiles, 6th ed., sec. 249.

1932(See, also, Poth v. Dexter Horton Estate , 140 Wn. 272 , 248 P. 374 ; Kenney v. Antonetti , 211 Cal. 336 , 295 P. 341 ; Wright v. Southern Counties Gas Co. , 102 Cal.App. 656 , 283 P. 823 ; Davis v. Brown , 92 Cal.App. 20 , 267 P. 754 .) Wilbur v. Home Lumber etc. Co. , 131 Or. 180 , 282 P. 236 , criticises the above case ( Davis v. Brown ), and says it states the minority rule, relying on Berry on Automobiles, 6th ed., sec. 249.

21932–1932
Davis v. Brown green
calctapp · 1928
2 sentences

1932(See, also, Poth v. Dexter Horton Estate , 140 Wn. 272 , 248 P. 374 ; Kenney v. Antonetti , 211 Cal. 336 , 295 P. 341 ; Wright v. Southern Counties Gas Co. , 102 Cal.App. 656 , 283 P. 823 ; Davis v. Brown , 92 Cal.App. 20 , 267 P. 754 .) Wilbur v. Home Lumber etc. Co. , 131 Or. 180 , 282 P. 236 , criticises the above case ( Davis v. Brown ), and says it states the minority rule, relying on Berry on Automobiles, 6th ed., sec. 249.

1932(See, also, Poth v. Dexter Horton Estate , 140 Wn. 272 , 248 P. 374 ; Kenney v. Antonetti , 211 Cal. 336 , 295 P. 341 ; Wright v. Southern Counties Gas Co. , 102 Cal.App. 656 , 283 P. 823 ; Davis v. Brown , 92 Cal.App. 20 , 267 P. 754 .) Wilbur v. Home Lumber etc. Co. , 131 Or. 180 , 282 P. 236 , criticises the above case ( Davis v. Brown ), and says it states the minority rule, relying on Berry on Automobiles, 6th ed., sec. 249.

21932–1932
Wilbur v. Home Lumber & Coal Co. green
or · 1929
2 sentences

1932(See, also, Poth v. Dexter Horton Estate , 140 Wn. 272 , 248 P. 374 ; Kenney v. Antonetti , 211 Cal. 336 , 295 P. 341 ; Wright v. Southern Counties Gas Co. , 102 Cal.App. 656 , 283 P. 823 ; Davis v. Brown , 92 Cal.App. 20 , 267 P. 754 .) Wilbur v. Home Lumber etc. Co. , 131 Or. 180 , 282 P. 236 , criticises the above case ( Davis v. Brown ), and says it states the minority rule, relying on Berry on Automobiles, 6th ed., sec. 249.

1932(See, also, Poth v. Dexter Horton Estate , 140 Wn. 272 , 248 P. 374 ; Kenney v. Antonetti , 211 Cal. 336 , 295 P. 341 ; Wright v. Southern Counties Gas Co. , 102 Cal.App. 656 , 283 P. 823 ; Davis v. Brown , 92 Cal.App. 20 , 267 P. 754 .) Wilbur v. Home Lumber etc. Co. , 131 Or. 180 , 282 P. 236 , criticises the above case ( Davis v. Brown ), and says it states the minority rule, relying on Berry on Automobiles, 6th ed., sec. 249.

21932–1932
State v. Perry green
idaho · 2010
2 sentences

2019Standard of Review "The trial court's judgment concerning admission of evidence shall 'only be disturbed on appeal when there has been a clear abuse of discretion.' " State v. Hill , 161 Idaho 444 , 447, 387 P.3d 112 , 115 (2016) (quoting State v. Perry , 150 Idaho 209 , 218, 245 P.3d 961 , 970 (2010) ).

2019Standard of Review "The trial court's judgment concerning admission of evidence shall 'only be disturbed on appeal when there has been a clear abuse of discretion.' " State v. Hill , 161 Idaho 444 , 447, 387 P.3d 112 , 115 (2016) (quoting State v. Perry , 150 Idaho 209 , 218, 245 P.3d 961 , 970 (2010) ).

12019–2019
State v. Hill green
idaho · 2016
2 sentences

2019Standard of Review "The trial court's judgment concerning admission of evidence shall 'only be disturbed on appeal when there has been a clear abuse of discretion.' " State v. Hill , 161 Idaho 444 , 447, 387 P.3d 112 , 115 (2016) (quoting State v. Perry , 150 Idaho 209 , 218, 245 P.3d 961 , 970 (2010) ).

2019Standard of Review "The trial court's judgment concerning admission of evidence shall 'only be disturbed on appeal when there has been a clear abuse of discretion.' " State v. Hill , 161 Idaho 444 , 447, 387 P.3d 112 , 115 (2016) (quoting State v. Perry , 150 Idaho 209 , 218, 245 P.3d 961 , 970 (2010) ).

12019–2019
United States v. Mabry green
ca3 · 2008
1 sentence

2017Mabry, 536 F.3d at 241 .

12017–2017
Godwin v. Farmers Insurance Co. of America green
arizctapp · 1981
2 sentences

1989First, and worst, it states in a vacuum, that “two major insurance treatises do not,even recognize that a minority rule exists.” Presumably it is referring to the rule it is about to announce as the majority rule, where it “concludes that, as in other civil cases where fraud is not specifically alleged, the defense of proving arson is satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence.” Godwin, 129 Ariz. 416 , 631 P.2d 571 .

1989First, and worst, it states in a vacuum, that “two major insurance treatises do not,even recognize that a minority rule exists.” Presumably it is referring to the rule it is about to announce as the majority rule, where it “concludes that, as in other civil cases where fraud is not specifically alleged, the defense of proving arson is satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence.” Godwin, 129 Ariz. 416 , 631 P.2d 571 .

11989–1989
Cargill, Incorporated, and Cross-Appellee v. Van Stafford, D/B/A Stafford Elevator, and Cross-Appellant green
ca10 · 1977
1 sentence

1982Cargill, Inc. v. Stafford, 553 F.2d 1222 (10th Cir. 1977).

11982–1982
Atkinson v. Life of Virginia green
va · 1976
1 sentence

1979Co. of Virginia, supra 228 S.E.2d at 120 .

11979–1979
Bayers v. W.O.W., Inc. neutral
colo · 1963
2 sentences

1972We are constrained to agree and find the following cases more persuasive than Botta: Bayers v. W.O.W., Inc., 151 Colo. 554 , 379 P.2d 815 (1963); Beagle v. Vasold, 65 Cal.2d 166 , 53 Cal.Rptr. 129 , 417 P.2d 673 (1966); Olsen v. Preferred Risk Mutual Ins.

1972We are constrained to agree and find the following cases more persuasive than Botta: Bayers v. W.O.W., Inc., 151 Colo. 554 , 379 P.2d 815 (1963); Beagle v. Vasold, 65 Cal.2d 166 , 53 Cal.Rptr. 129 , 417 P.2d 673 (1966); Olsen v. Preferred Risk Mutual Ins.

11972–1972
Beagle v. Vasold green
cal · 1966
2 sentences

1972We are constrained to agree and find the following cases more persuasive than Botta: Bayers v. W.O.W., Inc., 151 Colo. 554 , 379 P.2d 815 (1963); Beagle v. Vasold, 65 Cal.2d 166 , 53 Cal.Rptr. 129 , 417 P.2d 673 (1966); Olsen v. Preferred Risk Mutual Ins.

1972We are constrained to agree and find the following cases more persuasive than Botta: Bayers v. W.O.W., Inc., 151 Colo. 554 , 379 P.2d 815 (1963); Beagle v. Vasold, 65 Cal.2d 166 , 53 Cal.Rptr. 129 , 417 P.2d 673 (1966); Olsen v. Preferred Risk Mutual Ins.

11972–1972
Hoke v. Herman neutral
pa · 1853
2 sentences

1967Irwin Estate, supra, Pennsylvania, which adopted the majority viewpoint, casts doubt upon Hoke v. Herman, supra, which expressed the minority rule.

1967Irwin Estate, supra, Pennsylvania, which adopted the majority viewpoint, casts doubt upon Hoke v. Herman, supra, which expressed the minority rule.

11967–1967
Robert S. Abbott Publishing Co. v. Annunzio green
ill · 1953
2 sentences

1965Co. v. Annunzio, 414 Ill. 559 , 112 N.E.2d 101 , where the court observed that the majority interpretation is followed in nineteen states, while the minority rule has been applied administratively in Colorado and judicially in Oklahoma." In Robert S. Abbott Pub.

1965Co. v. Annunzio, 414 Ill. 559 , 112 N.E.2d 101 , where the court observed that the majority interpretation is followed in nineteen states, while the minority rule has been applied administratively in Colorado and judicially in Oklahoma." In Robert S. Abbott Pub.

11965–1965
Spicer v. Benefit Ass'n of Railway Employees green
or · 1933
2 sentences

1954Employees, 142 Or. 574 , 17 P.2d 1107 , 21 P.2d 187 , 90 A.L.R. 517 ; for instance, in the ■case of Central Glass Co. v. Niagara Fire Ins.

1954Employees, 142 Or. 574 , 17 P.2d 1107 , 21 P.2d 187 , 90 A.L.R. 517 ; for instance, in the ■case of Central Glass Co. v. Niagara Fire Ins.

11954–1954
State v. Friedman green
wva · 1942
2 sentences

1953State v. Friedman, 124 W.Va. 4 , 18 S.E.2d 653 .

1953State v. Friedman, 124 W.Va. 4 , 18 S.E.2d 653 .

11953–1953
Diamond Rubber Co. v. Harryman green
· 1907
1 sentence

1948The Colorado case [ 41 Colo. 415 , 92 P. 924 ], it seems, is based upon and adheres to the minority rule.

11948–1948
Hoffmann v. Steubing neutral
nysupct · 1906
1 sentence

1943Rep. 157 , 98 N.Y.S. 706 ; Marshall v. Hertzbelt, 71 S.W. 1061 ; Schaefer v. Voght’s Trustee, 113 Ky. 41 , 67 S.W. 54 ; Ansted v. Grieve, 57 S.D. 215 , 231 N.W. 912 ; 69 C.J. 1028, sec. 2229; Brown v. Heller, 30 N.M. 1 , 227 P. 594 .) In Brown v. Heller, supra, the rule announced in Pickett v. Leonard, 104 N.C. 326 , 10 S.E. 466 , is discussed and held to be the minority rule.

11943–1943
Brown v. Heller green
nm · 1924
2 sentences

1943Rep. 157 , 98 N.Y.S. 706 ; Marshall v. Hertzbelt, 71 S.W. 1061 ; Schaefer v. Voght’s Trustee, 113 Ky. 41 , 67 S.W. 54 ; Ansted v. Grieve, 57 S.D. 215 , 231 N.W. 912 ; 69 C.J. 1028, sec. 2229; Brown v. Heller, 30 N.M. 1 , 227 P. 594 .) In Brown v. Heller, supra, the rule announced in Pickett v. Leonard, 104 N.C. 326 , 10 S.E. 466 , is discussed and held to be the minority rule.

1943Rep. 157 , 98 N.Y.S. 706 ; Marshall v. Hertzbelt, 71 S.W. 1061 ; Schaefer v. Voght’s Trustee, 113 Ky. 41 , 67 S.W. 54 ; Ansted v. Grieve, 57 S.D. 215 , 231 N.W. 912 ; 69 C.J. 1028, sec. 2229; Brown v. Heller, 30 N.M. 1 , 227 P. 594 .) In Brown v. Heller, supra, the rule announced in Pickett v. Leonard, 104 N.C. 326 , 10 S.E. 466 , is discussed and held to be the minority rule.

11943–1943
Marshall v. Hartzfelt neutral
· 1903
1 sentence

1943Rep. 157 , 98 N.Y.S. 706 ; Marshall v. Hertzbelt, 71 S.W. 1061 ; Schaefer v. Voght’s Trustee, 113 Ky. 41 , 67 S.W. 54 ; Ansted v. Grieve, 57 S.D. 215 , 231 N.W. 912 ; 69 C.J. 1028, sec. 2229; Brown v. Heller, 30 N.M. 1 , 227 P. 594 .) In Brown v. Heller, supra, the rule announced in Pickett v. Leonard, 104 N.C. 326 , 10 S.E. 466 , is discussed and held to be the minority rule.

11943–1943
Smith v. . Coor neutral
nc · 1889
1 sentence

1943Rep. 157 , 98 N.Y.S. 706 ; Marshall v. Hertzbelt, 71 S.W. 1061 ; Schaefer v. Voght’s Trustee, 113 Ky. 41 , 67 S.W. 54 ; Ansted v. Grieve, 57 S.D. 215 , 231 N.W. 912 ; 69 C.J. 1028, sec. 2229; Brown v. Heller, 30 N.M. 1 , 227 P. 594 .) In Brown v. Heller, supra, the rule announced in Pickett v. Leonard, 104 N.C. 326 , 10 S.E. 466 , is discussed and held to be the minority rule.

11943–1943
Pickett v. . Leonard neutral
nc · 1889
1 sentence

1943Rep. 157 , 98 N.Y.S. 706 ; Marshall v. Hertzbelt, 71 S.W. 1061 ; Schaefer v. Voght’s Trustee, 113 Ky. 41 , 67 S.W. 54 ; Ansted v. Grieve, 57 S.D. 215 , 231 N.W. 912 ; 69 C.J. 1028, sec. 2229; Brown v. Heller, 30 N.M. 1 , 227 P. 594 .) In Brown v. Heller, supra, the rule announced in Pickett v. Leonard, 104 N.C. 326 , 10 S.E. 466 , is discussed and held to be the minority rule.

11943–1943
Ansted v. Grieve green
sd · 1930
2 sentences

1943Rep. 157 , 98 N.Y.S. 706 ; Marshall v. Hertzbelt, 71 S.W. 1061 ; Schaefer v. Voght’s Trustee, 113 Ky. 41 , 67 S.W. 54 ; Ansted v. Grieve, 57 S.D. 215 , 231 N.W. 912 ; 69 C.J. 1028, sec. 2229; Brown v. Heller, 30 N.M. 1 , 227 P. 594 .) In Brown v. Heller, supra, the rule announced in Pickett v. Leonard, 104 N.C. 326 , 10 S.E. 466 , is discussed and held to be the minority rule.

1943Rep. 157 , 98 N.Y.S. 706 ; Marshall v. Hertzbelt, 71 S.W. 1061 ; Schaefer v. Voght’s Trustee, 113 Ky. 41 , 67 S.W. 54 ; Ansted v. Grieve, 57 S.D. 215 , 231 N.W. 912 ; 69 C.J. 1028, sec. 2229; Brown v. Heller, 30 N.M. 1 , 227 P. 594 .) In Brown v. Heller, supra, the rule announced in Pickett v. Leonard, 104 N.C. 326 , 10 S.E. 466 , is discussed and held to be the minority rule.

11943–1943
Schaeffer v. Vogt's Trustee neutral
kyctapp · 1902
2 sentences

1943Rep. 157 , 98 N.Y.S. 706 ; Marshall v. Hertzbelt, 71 S.W. 1061 ; Schaefer v. Voght’s Trustee, 113 Ky. 41 , 67 S.W. 54 ; Ansted v. Grieve, 57 S.D. 215 , 231 N.W. 912 ; 69 C.J. 1028, sec. 2229; Brown v. Heller, 30 N.M. 1 , 227 P. 594 .) In Brown v. Heller, supra, the rule announced in Pickett v. Leonard, 104 N.C. 326 , 10 S.E. 466 , is discussed and held to be the minority rule.

1943Rep. 157 , 98 N.Y.S. 706 ; Marshall v. Hertzbelt, 71 S.W. 1061 ; Schaefer v. Voght’s Trustee, 113 Ky. 41 , 67 S.W. 54 ; Ansted v. Grieve, 57 S.D. 215 , 231 N.W. 912 ; 69 C.J. 1028, sec. 2229; Brown v. Heller, 30 N.M. 1 , 227 P. 594 .) In Brown v. Heller, supra, the rule announced in Pickett v. Leonard, 104 N.C. 326 , 10 S.E. 466 , is discussed and held to be the minority rule.

11943–1943
Lipman, Wolfe & Co. v. Phœnix Assur. Co. green
ca9 · 1919
11932–1932
Payne v. Ostrus green
ca8 · 1931
1 sentence

1932The minority rule is expressed in the following cases: UNITED STATES: Payne v. Ostrus , 50 Fed. (2d) 1039 , 77 A.L.R. 531 ; Hughes v. Reed , 46 Fed. (2d) 435 ; Lipman, Wolfe Co. v. Phoenix Assur.

11932–1932
Cruikshank v. Bidwell green
circtsdny · 1898
1 sentence

1932Co. , 258 Fed. 544 ; Cockrill v. Cooper , 86 Fed. 7 ; Missouri Sav.

11932–1932

Where else courts name it

WA 44 (1920–2021) CA 41 (1922–2023) VT 33 (1940–2025) TN 30 (1917–2018) TX 28 (1922–2023) VA 25 (1918–2024) OR 25 (1921–2021) OK 24 (1922–2006) AZ 23 (1946–2023) MI 22 (1927–2023) AR 22 (1923–2006) CO 22 (1897–2021) MD 22 (1960–2013) IL 20 (1903–2017) AL 20 (1913–2012) NJ 20 (1950–2009) MO 20 (1928–2018) FL 19 (1943–2015) WV 19 (1910–2023) IA 19 (1926–2018) ID 19 (1932–2019) WI 17 (1928–2017) SD 17 (1918–2015) NY 17 (1934–2010) MT 16 (1917–2023) KS 16 (1904–2017) DE 16 (1950–2026) OH 15 (1923–2015) NM 15 (1916–2000) LA 15 (1933–2019) SC 14 (1932–2025) KY 13 (1923–2021) AK 13 (1979–2024) MS 13 (1930–2019) CT 11 (1924–2025) UT 10 (1924–2008) ME 9 (1956–2022) PA 9 (1942–2015) NC 9 (1945–2009) HI 8 (1961–2025) DC 8 (1970–2015) IN 8 (1947–2000) WY 7 (1954–2019) NE 7 (1961–2002) NH 7 (1930–2009) RI 7 (1970–2013) VI 6 (1986–2016) ND 5 (1954–2011) GA 5 (1933–2003) NV 5 (1921–2007) MA 4 (1959–2006) MN 3 (1985–2011) PR 3 (1947–1955) GU 2 (2023–2024)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check