17 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2021 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
McKay v. Owensgreen2 sentences2012Cf. McKay v. Owens, 130 Idaho 148, 152 , 937 P.2d 1222, 1226 (1997) (discussing the doctrine of judicial estoppel). 2012Cf. McKay v. Owens, 130 Idaho 148, 152 , 937 P.2d 1222, 1226 (1997) (discussing the doctrine of judicial estoppel). | 4 | 7 |
Kathleen A. McCallister v. Gordon Dixon, MDgreen2 sentences2017It was never a legal one and Plaintiffs sworn affidavit did not make it a legal obligation.” “The doctrine of judicial estoppel ... is invoked at the discretion of the court.” McCallister v. Dixon, 154 Idaho 891, 894 , 303 P.3d 578, 581 (2012). 2017It was never a legal one and Plaintiffs sworn affidavit did not make it a legal obligation.” “The doctrine of judicial estoppel ... is invoked at the discretion of the court.” McCallister v. Dixon, 154 Idaho 891, 894 , 303 P.3d 578, 581 (2012). | 3 | 3 |
Heinze v. Bauergreen2 sentences2021“Judicial estoppel ‘precludes a party from gaining an advantage by taking one position, and then seeking a second advantage by taking an incompatible position.’ ” Heinze v. Bauer, 145 Idaho 232, 235 , 178 P.3d 597, 600 (2008) (quoting McKay v. Owens, 130 Idaho 148, 152 , 937 P.2d 1222, 1226 (1997)). 2021“Judicial estoppel ‘precludes a party from gaining an advantage by taking one position, and then seeking a second advantage by taking an incompatible position.’ ” Heinze v. Bauer, 145 Idaho 232, 235 , 178 P.3d 597, 600 (2008) (quoting McKay v. Owens, 130 Idaho 148, 152 , 937 P.2d 1222, 1226 (1997)). | 3 | 3 |
Loomis v. Churchgreen2 sentences2021Idaho adopted the doctrine of judicial estoppel in Loomis v. Church, 76 Idaho 87 , 277 P.2d 561 (1954). 2021Idaho adopted the doctrine of judicial estoppel in Loomis v. Church, 76 Idaho 87 , 277 P.2d 561 (1954). | 2 | 11 |
Harriet Rissetto v. Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 343, a Business Entity, Form Unknown, Michael Beavers and Does 1-25, Inclusivegreen2 sentences2004Rissetto v. Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 343, 94 F.3d 597, 600 (9th Cir.1996). 1997Rissetto v. Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 343, 94 F.3d 597, 600 (9th Cir.1996). | 2 | 2 |
McGimpsey v. D&L Ventures, Inc.green2 sentences2021Judicial estoppel is a doctrine that “precludes a party from advantageously taking one position, then subsequently seeking a second position that is incompatible with the first.” McGimpsey v. D&L Ventures, Inc., 165 Idaho 205, 216 , 443 P.3d 219, 230 (2019) (quoting McCallister v. Dixon, 154 Idaho 891, 894 , 303 P.3d 578, 581 (2013)). 2021Judicial estoppel is a doctrine that “precludes a party from advantageously taking one position, then subsequently seeking a second position that is incompatible with the first.” McGimpsey v. D&L Ventures, Inc., 165 Idaho 205, 216 , 443 P.3d 219, 230 (2019) (quoting McCallister v. Dixon, 154 Idaho 891, 894 , 303 P.3d 578, 581 (2013)). | 1 | 1 |
A & J CONST. CO., INC. v. Woodgreen2 sentences2017Judicial estoppel precludes a party from advantageously taking one position, then subsequently seeking a second position that is incompatible with the first.” McCallister, 154 Idaho at 894 , 303 P.3d at 581 (quoting A & J Const. Co. v. Wood, 141 Idaho 682, 684 , 116 P.3d 12, 14 (2005)). 2017Judicial estoppel precludes a party from advantageously taking one position, then subsequently seeking a second position that is incompatible with the first.” McCallister, 154 Idaho at 894 , 303 P.3d at 581 (quoting A & J Const. Co. v. Wood, 141 Idaho 682, 684 , 116 P.3d 12, 14 (2005)). | 1 | 1 |
Robertson Supply, Inc. v. Nichollsgreen2 sentences2005Robertson Supply, Inc. v. Nicholls, 131 Idaho 99, 101 , 952 P.2d 914, 916 (Ct.App. *685 1998). 2005Robertson Supply, Inc. v. Nicholls, 131 Idaho 99, 101 , 952 P.2d 914, 916 (Ct.App. *685 1998). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
New Hampshire v. Maine
green
2 sentences2005At oral argument, A & J remarked that in New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 , 121 S.Ct. 1808 , 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001), the United States Supreme Court laid out three factors courts may consider when determining whether to apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel. 2005At oral argument, A & J remarked that in New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 , 121 S.Ct. 1808 , 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001), the United States Supreme Court laid out three factors courts may consider when determining whether to apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Melton v. Anderson
green
2 sentences1985To countenance such a situation would be to regard with complacency a violation of the sanctity of the oath, and bring our system into disrepute.” 222 S.W.2d at 669 . 1985To countenance such a situation would be to regard with complacency a violation of the sanctity of the oath, and bring our system into disrepute." 222 S.W.2d at 669 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Suter v. Suter
green
2 sentences1982Suter v. Suter, 97 Idaho 461 , 546 P.2d 1169 (1976). . 1982Suter v. Suter, 97 Idaho 461 , 546 P.2d 1169 (1976). . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.