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.
17 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bear Island Water Ass'n, Inc. v. Browngreen2 sentences2023“The doctrine of part performance provides that when the parties to an agreement fail to reduce the agreement to writing, or otherwise fail to satisfy the [S]tatute of [F]rauds, the agreement ‘may nevertheless be specifically enforced when the purchaser [or lessee] has partly performed the agreement.’ ” Chapin v. Linden, 144 Idaho 393, 396 , 162 P.3d 773 , 775 (2007) (alterations added) (quoting Bear Island Water Ass’n, Inc. v. Brown, 125 Idaho 717, 722 , 874 P.2d 528, 533 (1994)). 2023“The doctrine of part performance provides that when the parties to an agreement fail to reduce the agreement to writing, or otherwise fail to satisfy the [S]tatute of [F]rauds, the agreement ‘may nevertheless be specifically enforced when the purchaser [or lessee] has partly performed the agreement.’ ” Chapin v. Linden, 144 Idaho 393, 396 , 162 P.3d 773 , 775 (2007) (alterations added) (quoting Bear Island Water Ass’n, Inc. v. Brown, 125 Idaho 717, 722 , 874 P.2d 528, 533 (1994)). | 10 | 11 |
Chapin v. Lindengreen2 sentences2023“The doctrine of part performance provides that when the parties to an agreement fail to reduce the agreement to writing, or otherwise fail to satisfy the [S]tatute of [F]rauds, the agreement ‘may nevertheless be specifically enforced when the purchaser [or lessee] has partly performed the agreement.’ ” Chapin v. Linden, 144 Idaho 393, 396 , 162 P.3d 773 , 775 (2007) (alterations added) (quoting Bear Island Water Ass’n, Inc. v. Brown, 125 Idaho 717, 722 , 874 P.2d 528, 533 (1994)). 2017In their verified complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that CDA Placer had sold to neighbors “a portion of the property used by Plaintiffs.” “Like any contract for the sale of land, an oral agreement ‘must be complete, definite, and certain in all its terms, or contain provisions which are capable in themselves of being reduced to certainty,’ before it will be specifically enforced by operation of the doctrine of part performance.” Chapin v. Linden, 144 Idaho 393, 396 , 162 P.3d 772, 775 (2007). | 2 | 3 |
Bauchman-Kingston Partnership v. Haroldsengreen2 sentences2019Bauchman-Kingston P'ship, LP v. Haroldsen, 149 Idaho 87 , 92, 233 P.3d 18 , 23 (2008). 2019Bauchman-Kingston P'ship, LP v. Haroldsen, 149 Idaho 87 , 92, 233 P.3d 18 , 23 (2008). | 1 | 2 |
Dante v. Golasgreen2 sentences2023See Dante v. Golas, 121 Idaho 149, 152 , 823 P.2d 183, 186 (Ct. App. 1992). 8 Here, 616 argues that the APA (and the incorporated Asset List) evidences the complete agreement necessary to both form a valid lease contract, and sufficiently memorialize that contract in writing. 2023See Dante v. Golas, 121 Idaho 149, 152 , 823 P.2d 183, 186 (Ct. App. 1992). 8 Here, 616 argues that the APA (and the incorporated Asset List) evidences the complete agreement necessary to both form a valid lease contract, and sufficiently memorialize that contract in writing. | 1 | 1 |
Mikesell v. Newworld Development Corp.green2 sentences2021See Nicholson, 161 Idaho at 882 , 392 P.3d at 1223 (holding an oral right of first refusal was too vague to be enforced); see Mikesell, 122 Idaho at 874 , 840 P.2d at 1096 (imputing the doctrine of part performance to a seller’s successor in title); see Franz, 111 Idaho at 1006 , 729 P.2d at 1069 (analyzing the enforceability of an oral non-compete agreement between an employer and former employee by applying the doctrine of part performance). 2021See Nicholson, 161 Idaho at 882 , 392 P.3d at 1223 (holding an oral right of first refusal was too vague to be enforced); see Mikesell, 122 Idaho at 874 , 840 P.2d at 1096 (imputing the doctrine of part performance to a seller’s successor in title); see Franz, 111 Idaho at 1006 , 729 P.2d at 1069 (analyzing the enforceability of an oral non-compete agreement between an employer and former employee by applying the doctrine of part performance). | 1 | 1 |
Frantz v. Parkegreen2 sentences2021See Nicholson, 161 Idaho at 882 , 392 P.3d at 1223 (holding an oral right of first refusal was too vague to be enforced); see Mikesell, 122 Idaho at 874 , 840 P.2d at 1096 (imputing the doctrine of part performance to a seller’s successor in title); see Franz, 111 Idaho at 1006 , 729 P.2d at 1069 (analyzing the enforceability of an oral non-compete agreement between an employer and former employee by applying the doctrine of part performance). 2021See Nicholson, 161 Idaho at 882 , 392 P.3d at 1223 (holding an oral right of first refusal was too vague to be enforced); see Mikesell, 122 Idaho at 874 , 840 P.2d at 1096 (imputing the doctrine of part performance to a seller’s successor in title); see Franz, 111 Idaho at 1006 , 729 P.2d at 1069 (analyzing the enforceability of an oral non-compete agreement between an employer and former employee by applying the doctrine of part performance). | 1 | 1 |
Nicholson v. Coeur D'Alene Placer Mining Corp.green2 sentences2021See Nicholson, 161 Idaho at 882 , 392 P.3d at 1223 (holding an oral right of first refusal was too vague to be enforced); see Mikesell, 122 Idaho at 874 , 840 P.2d at 1096 (imputing the doctrine of part performance to a seller’s successor in title); see Franz, 111 Idaho at 1006 , 729 P.2d at 1069 (analyzing the enforceability of an oral non-compete agreement between an employer and former employee by applying the doctrine of part performance). 2021See Nicholson, 161 Idaho at 882 , 392 P.3d at 1223 (holding an oral right of first refusal was too vague to be enforced); see Mikesell, 122 Idaho at 874 , 840 P.2d at 1096 (imputing the doctrine of part performance to a seller’s successor in title); see Franz, 111 Idaho at 1006 , 729 P.2d at 1069 (analyzing the enforceability of an oral non-compete agreement between an employer and former employee by applying the doctrine of part performance). | 1 | 1 |
Tew v. Manwaringgreen2 sentences1982See Tew v. Manwaring, 94 Idaho 50 , 480 P.2d 896 (1971). 1982See Tew v. Manwaring, 94 Idaho 50 , 480 P.2d 896 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Simons v. Simons
green
2 sentences2016Id. 2016Id. | 3 | 2016–2016 |
La Bella Vita v. Amanda Shuler
green
2 sentences2018The Lees' failure to address the district court's application of the merger doctrine is fatal because operation of the merger doctrine was an independent ground for the district court's grant of summary judgment on the easement claim. "[T]he fact that one of the grounds may be in error is of no consequence and may be disregarded if the judgment can be sustained upon one of the other grounds." La Bella Vita, LLC v. Shuler , 158 Idaho 799 , 806, 353 P.3d 420 , 427 (2015) (quoting Andersen v. Prof'l Escrow Servs., Inc. , 141 Idaho 743 , 746, 118 P.3d 75 , 78 (2005) ). 2018The Lees' failure to address the district court's application of the merger doctrine is fatal because operation of the merger doctrine was an independent ground for the district court's grant of summary judgment on the easement claim. "[T]he fact that one of the grounds may be in error is of no consequence and may be disregarded if the judgment can be sustained upon one of the other grounds." La Bella Vita, LLC v. Shuler , 158 Idaho 799 , 806, 353 P.3d 420 , 427 (2015) (quoting Andersen v. Prof'l Escrow Servs., Inc. , 141 Idaho 743 , 746, 118 P.3d 75 , 78 (2005) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Andersen v. Professional Escrow Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018The Lees' failure to address the district court's application of the merger doctrine is fatal because operation of the merger doctrine was an independent ground for the district court's grant of summary judgment on the easement claim. "[T]he fact that one of the grounds may be in error is of no consequence and may be disregarded if the judgment can be sustained upon one of the other grounds." La Bella Vita, LLC v. Shuler , 158 Idaho 799 , 806, 353 P.3d 420 , 427 (2015) (quoting Andersen v. Prof'l Escrow Servs., Inc. , 141 Idaho 743 , 746, 118 P.3d 75 , 78 (2005) ). 2018The Lees' failure to address the district court's application of the merger doctrine is fatal because operation of the merger doctrine was an independent ground for the district court's grant of summary judgment on the easement claim. "[T]he fact that one of the grounds may be in error is of no consequence and may be disregarded if the judgment can be sustained upon one of the other grounds." La Bella Vita, LLC v. Shuler , 158 Idaho 799 , 806, 353 P.3d 420 , 427 (2015) (quoting Andersen v. Prof'l Escrow Servs., Inc. , 141 Idaho 743 , 746, 118 P.3d 75 , 78 (2005) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Lettunich v. Key Bank National Ass'n
green
2 sentences2007Lettunich, 141 Idaho at 367 , 109 P.3d at 1109 (citing Bear Island Water Ass’n, Inc., 125 Idaho at 723, 874 P.2d at 534 ). 2007Lettunich, 141 Idaho at 367 , 109 P.3d at 1109 (citing Bear Island Water Ass’n, Inc., 125 Idaho at 723, 874 P.2d at 534 ). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Reynolds Irrigation Dist. v. Sproat
green
1 sentence1994Id. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Downing v. Boehringer
green
2 sentences1983Although the legal rationale for these cases is not always stated in them, or may be stated in different terms (as: not a “conveyance of land,” thus not within the statute of frauds, see Downing v. Boehringer, 82 Idaho 52 , 349 P.2d 306 (1960)), they are most likely a branch of the part performance exception to the statute of frauds. 1983Although the legal rationale for these cases is not always stated in them, or may be stated in different terms (as: not a “conveyance of land,” thus not within the statute of frauds, see Downing v. Boehringer, 82 Idaho 52 , 349 P.2d 306 (1960)), they are most likely a branch of the part performance exception to the statute of frauds. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Hoffman v. SV Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences1982This unquestionably constitutes part performance sufficient to take the contract out of the statute of frauds. 4 “[S]atisfaction of the doctrine of part performance [will] entitle [performing parties] to specific performance.” Hoffman, supra, 102 Idaho at 222 , 628 P.2d at 222 . 1982This unquestionably constitutes part performance sufficient to take the contract out of the statute of frauds. 4 “[S]atisfaction of the doctrine of part performance [will] entitle [performing parties] to specific performance.” Hoffman, supra, 102 Idaho at 222 , 628 P.2d at 222 . | 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.