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.
21 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2026 13 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 |
|---|---|---|
Idaho Watersheds Project v. State Board of Land Commissionersgreen2 sentences2024We acknowledge that we have at times suggested that all that is required for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ is that “the petition alleges sufficient facts concerning a possible constitutional violation of an urgent nature.” See Reclaim Idaho v. Denney, 169 Idaho 406 , 418, 497 P.3d 160 , 172 (2021) (citations omitted); Ybarra v. Legislature by Bedke, 166 Idaho 902, 906 , 466 P.3d 421, 425 (2020) (citation omitted); Regan v. Denney, 165 Idaho 15, 20 , 437 P.3d 15, 20 (2019) (citation omitted); Idaho Watersheds Project v. State Bd. of Land Comm’rs 2024We acknowledge that we have at times suggested that all that is required for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ is that “the petition alleges sufficient facts concerning a possible constitutional violation of an urgent nature.” See Reclaim Idaho v. Denney, 169 Idaho 406 , 418, 497 P.3d 160 , 172 (2021) (citations omitted); Ybarra v. Legislature by Bedke, 166 Idaho 902, 906 , 466 P.3d 421, 425 (2020) (citation omitted); Regan v. Denney, 165 Idaho 15, 20 , 437 P.3d 15, 20 (2019) (citation omitted); Idaho Watersheds Project v. State Bd. of Land Comm’rs | 11 | 12 |
Sweeney v. Ottergreen2 sentences2024We acknowledge that we have at times suggested that all that is required for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ is that “the petition alleges sufficient facts concerning a possible constitutional violation of an urgent nature.” See Reclaim Idaho v. Denney, 169 Idaho 406 , 418, 497 P.3d 160 , 172 (2021) (citations omitted); Ybarra v. Legislature by Bedke, 166 Idaho 902, 906 , 466 P.3d 421, 425 (2020) (citation omitted); Regan v. Denney, 165 Idaho 15, 20 , 437 P.3d 15, 20 (2019) (citation omitted); Idaho Watersheds Project v. State Bd. of Land Comm’rs 2024We acknowledge that we have at times suggested that all that is required for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ is that “the petition alleges sufficient facts concerning a possible constitutional violation of an urgent nature.” See Reclaim Idaho v. Denney, 169 Idaho 406 , 418, 497 P.3d 160 , 172 (2021) (citations omitted); Ybarra v. Legislature by Bedke, 166 Idaho 902, 906 , 466 P.3d 421, 425 (2020) (citation omitted); Regan v. Denney, 165 Idaho 15, 20 , 437 P.3d 15, 20 (2019) (citation omitted); Idaho Watersheds Project v. State Bd. of Land Comm’rs | 10 | 10 |
Keenan v. Pricegreen2 sentences2021See generally Sweeney v. Otter, 119 Idaho at 138 , 804 P.2d at 311 (accepting jurisdiction because “the petition alleges sufficient facts concerning a possible constitutional violation of an urgent nature” and deciding whether the Lieutenant Governor could break a tie in Senate leadership elections); Keenan v. Price, 68 Idaho 423, 429 , 195 P.2d 662, 664 (1948) (accepting jurisdiction because of the “importance of the question[] presented” and the “urgent necessity for immediate determination”). 2021See generally Sweeney v. Otter, 119 Idaho at 138 , 804 P.2d at 311 (accepting jurisdiction because “the petition alleges sufficient facts concerning a possible constitutional violation of an urgent nature” and deciding whether the Lieutenant Governor could break a tie in Senate leadership elections); Keenan v. Price, 68 Idaho 423, 429 , 195 P.2d 662, 664 (1948) (accepting jurisdiction because of the “importance of the question[] presented” and the “urgent necessity for immediate determination”). | 8 | 8 |
Reclaim Idaho/Gilmore v. Denneygreen2 sentences2024“Where petitioners have not met the traditional standing requirements, we have nevertheless held that we may ‘exercise jurisdiction to review a petition for extraordinary relief where the petition alleges sufficient facts concerning a possible constitutional violation of an urgent nature.’” Id. (quoting Coeur d’Alene Tribe v. Denney, 161 Idaho 508 , 513– 14, 387 P.3d 761 , 766–67 (2015)). 2024We acknowledge that we have at times suggested that all that is required for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ is that “the petition alleges sufficient facts concerning a possible constitutional violation of an urgent nature.” See Reclaim Idaho v. Denney, 169 Idaho 406 , 418, 497 P.3d 160 , 172 (2021) (citations omitted); Ybarra v. Legislature by Bedke, 166 Idaho 902, 906 , 466 P.3d 421, 425 (2020) (citation omitted); Regan v. Denney, 165 Idaho 15, 20 , 437 P.3d 15, 20 (2019) (citation omitted); Idaho Watersheds Project v. State Bd. of Land Comm’rs | 5 | 7 |
Regan v. Denneygreen2 sentences2024We acknowledge that we have at times suggested that all that is required for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ is that “the petition alleges sufficient facts concerning a possible constitutional violation of an urgent nature.” See Reclaim Idaho v. Denney, 169 Idaho 406 , 418, 497 P.3d 160 , 172 (2021) (citations omitted); Ybarra v. Legislature by Bedke, 166 Idaho 902, 906 , 466 P.3d 421, 425 (2020) (citation omitted); Regan v. Denney, 165 Idaho 15, 20 , 437 P.3d 15, 20 (2019) (citation omitted); Idaho Watersheds Project v. State Bd. of Land Comm’rs 2024We acknowledge that we have at times suggested that all that is required for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ is that “the petition alleges sufficient facts concerning a possible constitutional violation of an urgent nature.” See Reclaim Idaho v. Denney, 169 Idaho 406 , 418, 497 P.3d 160 , 172 (2021) (citations omitted); Ybarra v. Legislature by Bedke, 166 Idaho 902, 906 , 466 P.3d 421, 425 (2020) (citation omitted); Regan v. Denney, 165 Idaho 15, 20 , 437 P.3d 15, 20 (2019) (citation omitted); Idaho Watersheds Project v. State Bd. of Land Comm’rs | 3 | 6 |
Hakeem v. Beyergreen2 sentences2024This is because a formal motion provides notice to the state of a possible constitutional violation and “gives the state an opportunity to remedy that situation.” Hakeem v. Beyer, 990 F.2d 750, 765 (3rd Cir. 1993). 2024This is because a formal motion provides notice to the state of a possible constitutional violation and “gives the state an opportunity to remedy that situation.” Hakeem v. Beyer, 990 F.2d 750, 765 (3rd Cir. 1993). | 2 | 2 |
Coeur d'Alene Tribe v. Lawerence Denneygreen2 sentences2024“Where petitioners have not met the traditional standing requirements, we have nevertheless held that we may ‘exercise jurisdiction to review a petition for extraordinary relief where the petition alleges sufficient facts concerning a possible constitutional violation of an urgent nature.’” Id. (quoting Coeur d’Alene Tribe v. Denney, 161 Idaho 508 , 513– 14, 387 P.3d 761 , 766–67 (2015)). 2024“Where petitioners have not met the traditional standing requirements, we have nevertheless held that we may ‘exercise jurisdiction to review a petition for extraordinary relief where the petition alleges sufficient facts concerning a possible constitutional violation of an urgent nature.’” Id. (quoting Coeur d’Alene Tribe v. Denney, 161 Idaho 508 , 513– 14, 387 P.3d 761 , 766–67 (2015)). | 1 | 8 |
Ybarra v. Legislature of the State of Idaho & ID Bd of Educationgreen2 sentences2024We acknowledge that we have at times suggested that all that is required for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ is that “the petition alleges sufficient facts concerning a possible constitutional violation of an urgent nature.” See Reclaim Idaho v. Denney, 169 Idaho 406 , 418, 497 P.3d 160 , 172 (2021) (citations omitted); Ybarra v. Legislature by Bedke, 166 Idaho 902, 906 , 466 P.3d 421, 425 (2020) (citation omitted); Regan v. Denney, 165 Idaho 15, 20 , 437 P.3d 15, 20 (2019) (citation omitted); Idaho Watersheds Project v. State Bd. of Land Comm’rs 2024We acknowledge that we have at times suggested that all that is required for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ is that “the petition alleges sufficient facts concerning a possible constitutional violation of an urgent nature.” See Reclaim Idaho v. Denney, 169 Idaho 406 , 418, 497 P.3d 160 , 172 (2021) (citations omitted); Ybarra v. Legislature by Bedke, 166 Idaho 902, 906 , 466 P.3d 421, 425 (2020) (citation omitted); Regan v. Denney, 165 Idaho 15, 20 , 437 P.3d 15, 20 (2019) (citation omitted); Idaho Watersheds Project v. State Bd. of Land Comm’rs | 1 | 4 |
Koch v. Canyon Countygreen2 sentences2019This Court also recognized the "willingness to relax ordinary standing requirements ... where: (1) the matter concerns a significant and distinct constitutional violation, and (2) no party could otherwise have standing to bring a claim." Coeur D'Alene Tribe , 161 Idaho at 514 , 387 P.3d at 767 (citing Koch v. Canyon Cty. , 145 Idaho 158 , 162, 177 P.3d 372 , 376 (2008) ). 2019This Court also recognized the "willingness to relax ordinary standing requirements ... where: (1) the matter concerns a significant and distinct constitutional violation, and (2) no party could otherwise have standing to bring a claim." Coeur D'Alene Tribe , 161 Idaho at 514 , 387 P.3d at 767 (citing Koch v. Canyon Cty. , 145 Idaho 158 , 162, 177 P.3d 372 , 376 (2008) ). | 1 | 2 |
Nez Perce Tribe v. Cenarrusagreen2 sentences1999See Nez Perce Tribe v. Cenarrusa, 125 Idaho 37, 38 , 867 P.2d 911, 912 (1993) (citing Sweeney v. Otter, 119 Idaho 135, 138 , 804 P.2d 308, 311 (1990)); see also Balderston v. Brady, 17 Idaho 567 , 107 P. 493 (1910). 1999See Nez Perce Tribe v. Cenarrusa, 125 Idaho 37, 38 , 867 P.2d 911, 912 (1993) (citing Sweeney v. Otter, 119 Idaho 135, 138 , 804 P.2d 308, 311 (1990)); see also Balderston v. Brady, 17 Idaho 567 , 107 P. 493 (1910). | 1 | 1 |
Balderston v. Bradygreen2 sentences1999See Nez Perce Tribe v. Cenarrusa, 125 Idaho 37, 38 , 867 P.2d 911, 912 (1993) (citing Sweeney v. Otter, 119 Idaho 135, 138 , 804 P.2d 308, 311 (1990)); see also Balderston v. Brady, 17 Idaho 567 , 107 P. 493 (1910). 1999See Nez Perce Tribe v. Cenarrusa, 125 Idaho 37, 38 , 867 P.2d 911, 912 (1993) (citing Sweeney v. Otter, 119 Idaho 135, 138 , 804 P.2d 308, 311 (1990)); see also Balderston v. Brady, 17 Idaho 567 , 107 P. 493 (1910). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Troutner v. Kempthorne
green
2 sentences2021Yet, this Court noted that it may nonetheless “ ‘exercise jurisdiction to review a petition for extraordinary relief where the petition alleges sufficient facts concerning a possible constitutional violation of an urgent nature.’ ” Id. (quoting Idaho Watersheds Project, 133 Idaho at 57 , 982 P.2d at 360 ). 2021Yet, this Court noted that it may nonetheless “ ‘exercise jurisdiction to review a petition for extraordinary relief where the petition alleges sufficient facts concerning a possible constitutional violation of an urgent nature.’ ” Id. (quoting Idaho Watersheds Project, 133 Idaho at 57 , 982 P.2d at 360 ). | 3 | 2021–2021 |
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.