17 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Francis v. Amalgamated Sugar Co.green2 sentences1989Kindred v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 114 Idaho 284 , 756 P.2d 401 (1988) (19% impairment increased to 100% disability under odd lot doctrine); Nielson v. Industrial Special Indemnity Fund, 106 Idaho 878 , 684 P.2d 280 (1984) (35% impairment increased to 100% disability under odd lot doctrine); Carey v. Clearwater County Road Dept., 107 Idaho 109 , 686 P.2d 54 (1984) (50% impairment increased to 100% disability under odd lot doctrine); Francis v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 98 Idaho 407 , 565 P.2d 1364 (1977) (25% disability increased to 100% disability under odd lot doctrine); and Lyons v. Industrial 1989Kindred v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 114 Idaho 284 , 756 P.2d 401 (1988) (19% impairment increased to 100% disability under odd lot doctrine); Nielson v. Industrial Special Indemnity Fund, 106 Idaho 878 , 684 P.2d 280 (1984) (35% impairment increased to 100% disability under odd lot doctrine); Carey v. Clearwater County Road Dept., 107 Idaho 109 , 686 P.2d 54 (1984) (50% impairment increased to 100% disability under odd lot doctrine); Francis v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 98 Idaho 407 , 565 P.2d 1364 (1977) (25% disability increased to 100% disability under odd lot doctrine); and Lyons v. Industrial | 1 | 2 |
Aguilar v. Stategreen2 sentences2024“An odd-lot worker is one who, as a result of the injury, is impaired to an extent that his or her ability to perform services is so limited in quality, quantity, or dependability that no reasonable market for his or her services exists.” Aguilar, 164 Idaho at 900 , 436 P.3d at 1249 (citation omitted). 2024“An odd-lot worker is one who, as a result of the injury, is impaired to an extent that his or her ability to perform services is so limited in quality, quantity, or dependability that no reasonable market for his or her services exists.” Aguilar, 164 Idaho at 900 , 436 P.3d at 1249 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Gordon v. Westgreen2 sentences1996Cf. Gordon v. West, 103 Idaho 100, 104-05 , 645 P.2d 334, 338-39 (1982) (claimant must do more than show he cannot perform his previous type of employment to establish odd-lot status; he must show that there is no suitable occupation available). 1996Cf. Gordon v. West, 103 Idaho 100, 104-05 , 645 P.2d 334, 338-39 (1982) (claimant must do more than show he cannot perform his previous type of employment to establish odd-lot status; he must show that there is no suitable occupation available). | 1 | 1 |
Crawford v. Nielsongreen2 sentences1996See Crawford v. Nielson, 78 Idaho 526 , 307 P.2d 229 (1957) (because odd-lot workers are by definition not absolutely helpless, the mere fact of actual employment is not conclusive as to question of total permanent disability). 1996See Crawford v. Nielson, 78 Idaho 526 , 307 P.2d 229 (1957) (because odd-lot workers are by definition not absolutely helpless, the mere fact of actual employment is not conclusive as to question of total permanent disability). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lyons v. Industrial Special Indemnity Fund
green
2 sentences2017The first step of the odd-lot doctrine consists of & prima facie showing by the claimant that he or she will not be “employed regularly in any well-known branch of the labor market absent a business boom, the sympathy of a particular employer or friends, temporary good luck, or a superhuman effort on [claimant’s] part.” Lyons, 98 Idaho at 406 , 565 P.2d at 1363 . 2017The first step of the odd-lot doctrine consists of & prima facie showing by the claimant that he or she will not be “employed regularly in any well-known branch of the labor market absent a business boom, the sympathy of a particular employer or friends, temporary good luck, or a superhuman effort on [claimant’s] part.” Lyons, 98 Idaho at 406 , 565 P.2d at 1363 . | 3 | 1989–2017 |
Carey v. Clearwater County Road Department
green
2 sentences1995Dep't, 107 Idaho 109 , 686 P.2d 54 (1984), this Court established a formula for the apportionment of the non-medical portion of liability for an employee’s disability between the I.S.I.F. and the employer/surety where the employee was totally and permanently disabled under the odd-lot doctrine. 1995Dep't, 107 Idaho 109 , 686 P.2d 54 (1984), this Court established a formula for the apportionment of the non-medical portion of liability for an employee’s disability between the I.S.I.F. and the employer/surety where the employee was totally and permanently disabled under the odd-lot doctrine. | 3 | 1989–2014 |
Boley v. State, Industrial Special Indemnity Fund
green
2 sentences2024“The odd-lot doctrine comes into play when the claimant has proved something less than 100% disability.” Id. (citation omitted). 2001Id. | 2 | 2001–2024 |
Stoddard v. Hagadone Corp.
green
2 sentences2012Id. 2012Id. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Hegel v. Kuhlman Bros., Inc.
green
2 sentences2001Id. at 858 , 771 P.2d at 522 . 2001Id. at 858 , 771 P.2d at 522 . | 2 | 1997–2001 |
Huerta v. School Dist. No. 431
green
2 sentences1994No. m, 116 Idaho 43, 48-49 , 773 P.2d' 1130, 1135-36 (1989). 1989Huerta v. School District # 431, 116 Idaho 43 , 773 P.2d 1130 (1989). | 2 | 1989–1994 |
Thompson v. MOTEL 6
green
2 sentences2001Thompson v. Motel 6, 135 Idaho 373 , 17 P.3d 874 (2001). 2001Thompson v. Motel 6, 135 Idaho 373 , 17 P.3d 874 (2001). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Hamilton v. Ted Beamis Logging & Construction
green
2 sentences1996In that case there was no question that pre-existing conditions did not combine with the subsequent injury since “Hamilton was already totally and permanently disabled [pursuant to the odd-lot doctrine] coming into the second injury.” Id. at 225 , 899 P.2d at 438 . 1996In that case there was no question that pre-existing conditions did not combine with the subsequent injury since “Hamilton was already totally and permanently disabled [pursuant to the odd-lot doctrine] coming into the second injury.” Id. at 225 , 899 P.2d at 438 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Archer v. Bonners Ferry Datsun
green
2 sentences1990We vacate the Commission’s order apportioning fifty percent of the cause of the disability to a preexisting impairment and remand to the Commission for reconsideration under Archer v. Bonners Ferry Datsun, 117 Idaho 166 , 786 P.2d 557 (1990). 1990We vacate the Commission’s order apportioning fifty percent of the cause of the disability to a preexisting impairment and remand to the Commission for reconsideration under Archer v. Bonners Ferry Datsun, 117 Idaho 166 , 786 P.2d 557 (1990). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Kindred v. Amalgamated Sugar Co.
green
2 sentences1989Kindred v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 114 Idaho 284 , 756 P.2d 401 (1988) (19% impairment increased to 100% disability under odd lot doctrine); Nielson v. Industrial Special Indemnity Fund, 106 Idaho 878 , 684 P.2d 280 (1984) (35% impairment increased to 100% disability under odd lot doctrine); Carey v. Clearwater County Road Dept., 107 Idaho 109 , 686 P.2d 54 (1984) (50% impairment increased to 100% disability under odd lot doctrine); Francis v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 98 Idaho 407 , 565 P.2d 1364 (1977) (25% disability increased to 100% disability under odd lot doctrine); and Lyons v. Industrial 1989Kindred v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 114 Idaho 284 , 756 P.2d 401 (1988) (19% impairment increased to 100% disability under odd lot doctrine); Nielson v. Industrial Special Indemnity Fund, 106 Idaho 878 , 684 P.2d 280 (1984) (35% impairment increased to 100% disability under odd lot doctrine); Carey v. Clearwater County Road Dept., 107 Idaho 109 , 686 P.2d 54 (1984) (50% impairment increased to 100% disability under odd lot doctrine); Francis v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 98 Idaho 407 , 565 P.2d 1364 (1977) (25% disability increased to 100% disability under odd lot doctrine); and Lyons v. Industrial | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Rost v. J.R. Simplot Co.
green
2 sentences1989In Rost v. Simplot, 106 Idaho 444 , 680 P.2d 866 (1984), this Court held that it is the “claimant’s burden to establish a prima facie case that he is a member of the odd-lot category,” and that in order to present a prima facie case of odd-lot total disability, that claimant must prove the unavailability of any suitable work. 1989In Rost v. Simplot, 106 Idaho 444 , 680 P.2d 866 (1984), this Court held that it is the “claimant’s burden to establish a prima facie case that he is a member of the odd-lot category,” and that in order to present a prima facie case of odd-lot total disability, that claimant must prove the unavailability of any suitable work. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Nielson v. State, Indus. Special Indem. Fund
green
2 sentences1989Kindred v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 114 Idaho 284 , 756 P.2d 401 (1988) (19% impairment increased to 100% disability under odd lot doctrine); Nielson v. Industrial Special Indemnity Fund, 106 Idaho 878 , 684 P.2d 280 (1984) (35% impairment increased to 100% disability under odd lot doctrine); Carey v. Clearwater County Road Dept., 107 Idaho 109 , 686 P.2d 54 (1984) (50% impairment increased to 100% disability under odd lot doctrine); Francis v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 98 Idaho 407 , 565 P.2d 1364 (1977) (25% disability increased to 100% disability under odd lot doctrine); and Lyons v. Industrial 1989Kindred v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 114 Idaho 284 , 756 P.2d 401 (1988) (19% impairment increased to 100% disability under odd lot doctrine); Nielson v. Industrial Special Indemnity Fund, 106 Idaho 878 , 684 P.2d 280 (1984) (35% impairment increased to 100% disability under odd lot doctrine); Carey v. Clearwater County Road Dept., 107 Idaho 109 , 686 P.2d 54 (1984) (50% impairment increased to 100% disability under odd lot doctrine); Francis v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 98 Idaho 407 , 565 P.2d 1364 (1977) (25% disability increased to 100% disability under odd lot doctrine); and Lyons v. Industrial | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Mapusaga v. Red Lion Riverside Inn
green
2 sentences1989Perhaps the most instructive case is Mapusaga v. Red Lion Riverside Inn, 113 Idaho 842 , 748 P.2d 1372 (1987). 1989Perhaps the most instructive case is Mapusaga v. Red Lion Riverside Inn, 113 Idaho 842 , 748 P.2d 1372 (1987). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.