competent evidence standard in Idaho

18 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2017 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 (11)

Case	Followed	Cited
Miller v. EchoHawkgreen idaho · 1994 · cited in 4 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1999–2017 2 sentences 2017“Factual findings that are the basis for an exercise of discretion such as the award of fees are subject to a substantial and competent evidence standard of review.” Miller v. EchoHawk, 126 Idaho 47, 49 , 878 P.2d 746, 748 (1994). 2017“Factual findings that are the basis for an exercise of discretion such as the award of fees are subject to a substantial and competent evidence standard of review.” Miller v. EchoHawk, 126 Idaho 47, 49 , 878 P.2d 746, 748 (1994).	3	4
Mulch v. Mulchgreen idaho · 1994 · cited in 3 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1994–2002 2 sentences 2002Although the parties argue about whether the judge abused his discretion, and while some Idaho cases have discussed the abuse of discretion standard in relation to awards of spousal maintenance, this Court, in the case of Mulch v. Mulch, clarified that the substantial and competent evidence standard should be applied to the factual determinations underlying the award, duration, and amount of spousal maintenance. 125 Idaho 93, 98 , 867 P.2d 967, 972 (1994). 2002Although the parties argue about whether the judge abused his discretion, and while some Idaho cases have discussed the abuse of discretion standard in relation to awards of spousal maintenance, this Court, in the case of Mulch v. Mulch, clarified that the substantial and competent evidence standard should be applied to the factual determinations underlying the award, duration, and amount of spousal maintenance. 125 Idaho 93, 98 , 867 P.2d 967, 972 (1994).	3	3
State v. Byingtongreen idaho · 1999 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2001–2004 2 sentences 2004See State v. Byington, 132 Idaho 589, 592 , 977 P.2d 203, 206 (1999) (citing Miller v. EchoHawk, 126 Idaho 47 , 878 P.2d 746 (1994) (“Factual findings that are the basis for an exercise of discretion ... are subject to a substantial and competent evidence standard of review.”)). 2004See State v. Byington, 132 Idaho 589, 592 , 977 P.2d 203, 206 (1999) (citing Miller v. EchoHawk, 126 Idaho 47 , 878 P.2d 746 (1994) (“Factual findings that are the basis for an exercise of discretion ... are subject to a substantial and competent evidence standard of review.”)).	2	2
Barber v. Honorofgreen idaho · 1989 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1994–1997 2 sentences 1997Hart, 126 Idaho at 552 , 887 P.2d at 1059 (citing Mulch v. Mulch, 125 Idaho 93, 98 , 867 P.2d 967, 972 (1994); Barber v. Honorof, 116 Idaho 767, 770 , 780 P.2d 89, 92 (1989)). 1997Hart, 126 Idaho at 552 , 887 P.2d at 1059 (citing Mulch v. Mulch, 125 Idaho 93, 98 , 867 P.2d 967, 972 (1994); Barber v. Honorof, 116 Idaho 767, 770 , 780 P.2d 89, 92 (1989)).	2	2
In Interest of Bushgreen idaho · 1988 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016In re Bush, 113 Idaho 873, 876 , 749 P.2d 492, 495 (1988) (“Appellants ask us to abandon the substantial competent evidence test for a more stringent standard of appellate review. 2016In re Bush, 113 Idaho 873, 876 , 749 P.2d 492, 495 (1988) (“Appellants ask us to abandon the substantial competent evidence test for a more stringent standard of appellate review.	1	1
State v. Hoseygreen idaho · 2000 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002Where, however, the contract is deemed to be ambiguous, “interpretation of the contract is a question of fact that focuses on the intent of the parties.” Id. ‘Whether 606 the facts establish a violation of the contract is a question of law over which this Court exercises free review.” Id, In the present ease, the contractual terms of the original agreements and the amended agreements when construed together are ambiguous, making them interpretation a question of fact and entitling the trial court’s findings to the substantial and competent evidence standard of review. 2002*See id.	1	1
Jenkins v. State, Dept. of Water Resourcesgreen idaho · 1982 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001Jenkins v. State, Dep’t of Water Resources, 103 Idaho 384, 389 , 647 P.2d 1256, 1261 (1982). 2001Jenkins v. State, Dep’t of Water Resources, 103 Idaho 384, 389 , 647 P.2d 1256, 1261 (1982).	1	1
Brady v. City of Homedalegreen idaho · 1997 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001See State v. Byington, 132 Idaho 589, 592 , 977 P.2d 203, 206 (1999) (citing Miller v. Echo-Hawk, 126 Idaho 47 , 878 P.2d 746 (1994) (“Factual findings that are the basis for an exercise of discretion ... are subject to a substantial and competent evidence standard of review.”)); see also Nelson v. Big Lost River Irrigation Dist., 133 Idaho 139, 142 , 983 P.2d 212, 215 (1999) (citing Brady v. City of Homedale, 130 Idaho 569, 573 , 944 P.2d 704, 708 (1997)). 2001See State v. Byington, 132 Idaho 589, 592 , 977 P.2d 203, 206 (1999) (citing Miller v. Echo-Hawk, 126 Idaho 47 , 878 P.2d 746 (1994) (“Factual findings that are the basis for an exercise of discretion ... are subject to a substantial and competent evidence standard of review.”)); see also Nelson v. Big Lost River Irrigation Dist., 133 Idaho 139, 142 , 983 P.2d 212, 215 (1999) (citing Brady v. City of Homedale, 130 Idaho 569, 573 , 944 P.2d 704, 708 (1997)).	1	1
Nelson v. Big Lost River Irrigation Districtgreen idaho · 1999 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001See State v. Byington, 132 Idaho 589, 592 , 977 P.2d 203, 206 (1999) (citing Miller v. Echo-Hawk, 126 Idaho 47 , 878 P.2d 746 (1994) (“Factual findings that are the basis for an exercise of discretion ... are subject to a substantial and competent evidence standard of review.”)); see also Nelson v. Big Lost River Irrigation Dist., 133 Idaho 139, 142 , 983 P.2d 212, 215 (1999) (citing Brady v. City of Homedale, 130 Idaho 569, 573 , 944 P.2d 704, 708 (1997)). 2001See State v. Byington, 132 Idaho 589, 592 , 977 P.2d 203, 206 (1999) (citing Miller v. Echo-Hawk, 126 Idaho 47 , 878 P.2d 746 (1994) (“Factual findings that are the basis for an exercise of discretion ... are subject to a substantial and competent evidence standard of review.”)); see also Nelson v. Big Lost River Irrigation Dist., 133 Idaho 139, 142 , 983 P.2d 212, 215 (1999) (citing Brady v. City of Homedale, 130 Idaho 569, 573 , 944 P.2d 704, 708 (1997)).	1	1
Davaz v. Priest River Glass Co., Inc.green idaho · 1994 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995Davaz v. Priest River Glass Co., 125 Idaho 333, 336 , 870 P.2d 1292, 1295 (1994) (citing Idaho Const. art. 1995Davaz v. Priest River Glass Co., 125 Idaho 333, 336 , 870 P.2d 1292, 1295 (1994) (citing Idaho Const. art.	1	1
Monroe v. Chuck & Del's, Inc.green idaho · 1993 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993 2 sentences 1993See Monroe v. Chuck & Del’s Inc., 123 Idaho 627, 630 , 851 P.2d 341, 344 (1993). 1993See Monroe v. Chuck & Del’s Inc., 123 Idaho 627, 630 , 851 P.2d 341, 344 (1993).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
Teevan v. Office of Attorney General, Natural Resources Division, State of Idaho green idaho · 1997 2 sentences 2007Teevan, 130 Idaho at 82 , 936 P.2d at 1324 . 2007Teevan, 130 Idaho at 82 , 936 P.2d at 1324 .	1	2007–2007
Hart v. Deary High School green idaho · 1994 2 sentences 1997Hart, 126 Idaho at 552 , 887 P.2d at 1059 (citing Mulch v. Mulch, 125 Idaho 93, 98 , 867 P.2d 967, 972 (1994); Barber v. Honorof, 116 Idaho 767, 770 , 780 P.2d 89, 92 (1989)). 1997Hart, 126 Idaho at 552 , 887 P.2d at 1059 (citing Mulch v. Mulch, 125 Idaho 93, 98 , 867 P.2d 967, 972 (1994); Barber v. Honorof, 116 Idaho 767, 770 , 780 P.2d 89, 92 (1989)).	1	1997–1997
Huerta v. School Dist. No. 431 green idaho · 1989 2 sentences 1993We have also held that a claimant may be relieved of the burden of proof required in Gordon 2 , if his efforts to find suitable employment would have been futile. 116 Idaho at 49 , 773 P.2d at 1136 . 1993We have also held that a claimant may be relieved of the burden of proof required in Gordon 2 , if his efforts to find suitable employment would have been futile. 116 Idaho at 49 , 773 P.2d at 1136 .	1	1993–1993
Thompson v. Thompson green idahoctapp · 1986 2 sentences 1988This very argument was rejected by the Court of Appeals in Thompson, supra. See 110 Idaho at 95-96 , 714 P.2d at 64-65 , and the comprehensive list of case cited therein. 1988This very argument was rejected by the Court of Appeals in Thompson, supra. See 110 Idaho at 95-96 , 714 P.2d at 64-65 , and the comprehensive list of case cited therein.	1	1988–1988
Knight Ins., Inc. v. Knight green idahoctapp · 1985 2 sentences 1987The appellant argues on appeal that this Court should exercise “a free review” rather than applying a substantial and competent evidence test, because the settlement agreement is void, citing Knight Insurance, Inc. v. Knight, 109 Idaho 56 , 704 P.2d 960 (Ct.App.1985). 1987The appellant argues on appeal that this Court should exercise “a free review” rather than applying a substantial and competent evidence test, because the settlement agreement is void, citing Knight Insurance, Inc. v. Knight, 109 Idaho 56 , 704 P.2d 960 (Ct.App.1985).	1	1987–1987
Booth v. City of Burley green idaho · 1978 2 sentences 1986This statement, based on earlier holdings of the Court, was perhaps overruled in Booth v. City of Burley, 99 Idaho 229 , 580 P.2d 75 (1979) and the substantial competent evidence test substituted. 1986This statement, based on earlier holdings of the Court, was perhaps overruled in Booth v. City of Burley, 99 Idaho 229 , 580 P.2d 75 (1979) and the substantial competent evidence test substituted.	1	1986–1986
Boise Water Corp. v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission green idaho · 1976 2 sentences 1986This Court has 882 stated: "What is essential are sufficient findings to permit the reviewing court to determine that the Commission acted nonarbitrarily." Boise Water, supra, 97 Idaho at 840 , 555 P.2d at 171 . 1986This Court has 882 stated: "What is essential are sufficient findings to permit the reviewing court to determine that the Commission acted nonarbitrarily." Boise Water, supra, 97 Idaho at 840 , 555 P.2d at 171 .	1	1986–1986

Statutes the citing opinions construe

ID § Idaho Code § 72-732 (4) ID § Idaho Code § 12-121 (3) ID § Idaho Code § 72-1366 (3) ID § Idaho Code § 72-1368 (3) ID § Idaho Code § 72-425 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

KS 237 (1992–2026) FL 20 (1961–2021) NC 19 (1984–2025) ID 18 (1986–2017) OK 17 (1989–2018) PA 3 (1982–1991) NJ 2 (2017–2022)

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