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.
15 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Downey v. Vavoldgreen2 sentences2014As we explained in Wells v. Williamson, 118 Idaho 37 , 794 P.2d 626 (1990), ‘boundary by acquiescence’ is simply another name attached to the doctrine of boundary by agreement; it is not a separate legal theory.” Downey v. Vavold, 144 Idaho 592, 595-96 , 166 P.3d 382, 385-86 (2007). 2014As we explained in Wells v. Williamson, 118 Idaho 37 , 794 P.2d 626 (1990), ‘boundary by acquiescence’ is simply another name attached to the doctrine of boundary by agreement; it is not a separate legal theory.” Downey v. Vavold, 144 Idaho 592, 595-96 , 166 P.3d 382, 385-86 (2007). | 2 | 2 |
Cameron v. Nealgreen2 sentences2007Under the doctrine of boundary by agreement, however, “[t]he agreement need not be express, but may be implied by the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the parties.” Cameron v. Neal, 130 Idaho 898, 900 , 950 P.2d 1237, 1240 (1997). 2007Under the doctrine of boundary by agreement, however, “[t]he agreement need not be express, but may be implied by the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the parties.” Cameron v. Neal, 130 Idaho 898, 900 , 950 P.2d 1237, 1240 (1997). | 2 | 2 |
Johnson v. Newportgreen2 sentences2023There are two required elements of a boundary by agreement claim: “(1) [T]here must be an uncertain or disputed boundary, and (2) a subsequent agreement fixing the boundary.” Luce, 142 Idaho at 271 , 127 P.3d at 174 ; see also Johnson v. Newport, 131 Idaho 521, 523 , 960 P.2d 742, 744 (1998). 2023There are two required elements of a boundary by agreement claim: “(1) [T]here must be an uncertain or disputed boundary, and (2) a subsequent agreement fixing the boundary.” Luce, 142 Idaho at 271 , 127 P.3d at 174 ; see also Johnson v. Newport, 131 Idaho 521, 523 , 960 P.2d 742, 744 (1998). | 1 | 2 |
Hyde v. Lawsongreen2 sentences2018Thus, "[w]hile Idaho cases do recognize the doctrine of boundary by agreement, an orally agreed upon boundary cannot constitute the actual boundary between two pieces of property unless the true boundary line is 'unknown to the parties and is uncertain or in dispute.' " Berg , 107 Idaho at 444 , 690 P.2d at 899 (quoting Hyde v. Lawson , 94 Idaho 886 , 889, 499 P.2d 1242 , 1245 (1972) ). 2018Thus, "[w]hile Idaho cases do recognize the doctrine of boundary by agreement, an orally agreed upon boundary cannot constitute the actual boundary between two pieces of property unless the true boundary line is 'unknown to the parties and is uncertain or in dispute.' " Berg , 107 Idaho at 444 , 690 P.2d at 899 (quoting Hyde v. Lawson , 94 Idaho 886 , 889, 499 P.2d 1242 , 1245 (1972) ). | 1 | 2 |
Norwood v. Stevensgreen2 sentences1991Broadhead v. Hawley, 109 Idaho 952 , 712 P.2d 653 (Ct.App.1985); Herrmann v. Woodell, 107 Idaho 916 , 693 P.2d 1118 (Ct.App.1985); Norwood v. Stevens, 104 Idaho 44 , 655 P.2d 938 (Ct.App.1982); Wells v. Williamson, 118 Idaho 48 , 794 P.2d 637 (Ct.App.1989) aff'd 118 Idaho 37 , 794 E.2d 626 (1990). 2 . 1991Broadhead v. Hawley, 109 Idaho 952 , 712 P.2d 653 (Ct.App.1985); Herrmann v. Woodell, 107 Idaho 916 , 693 P.2d 1118 (Ct.App.1985); Norwood v. Stevens, 104 Idaho 44 , 655 P.2d 938 (Ct.App.1982); Wells v. Williamson, 118 Idaho 48 , 794 P.2d 637 (Ct.App.1989) aff'd 118 Idaho 37 , 794 E.2d 626 (1990). 2 . | 1 | 2 |
Dreher v. Powellgreen2 sentences2024The application of the doctrine of boundary by agreement raises “a mixed question of law and fact.” Dreher v. Powell, 120 Idaho 715, 717 , 819 P.2d 569, 571 (Ct. App. 1991). 2024The application of the doctrine of boundary by agreement raises “a mixed question of law and fact.” Dreher v. Powell, 120 Idaho 715, 717 , 819 P.2d 569, 571 (Ct. App. 1991). | 1 | 1 |
FLYING ELK INVESTMENT, LLC v. Cornwallgreen2 sentences2023Flying Elk Inv., LLC v. Cornwall, 149 Idaho 9, 13 , 232 P.3d 330, 334 (2010). 2023Flying Elk Inv., LLC v. Cornwall, 149 Idaho 9, 13 , 232 P.3d 330, 334 (2010). | 1 | 1 |
Hindmarsh v. Mockgreen2 sentences2023Res judicata, or claim preclusion, “bars not only subsequent relitigation of a claim previously asserted, but also subsequent relitigation of any claims relating to the same cause of action which were actually made or which might have been made.” Hindmarsh v. Mock, 138 Idaho 92, 94 , 57 P.3d 803, 805 (2002). 2023Res judicata, or claim preclusion, “bars not only subsequent relitigation of a claim previously asserted, but also subsequent relitigation of any claims relating to the same cause of action which were actually made or which might have been made.” Hindmarsh v. Mock, 138 Idaho 92, 94 , 57 P.3d 803, 805 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
Luce v. Marblegreen2 sentences2023There are two required elements of a boundary by agreement claim: “(1) [T]here must be an uncertain or disputed boundary, and (2) a subsequent agreement fixing the boundary.” Luce, 142 Idaho at 271 , 127 P.3d at 174 ; see also Johnson v. Newport, 131 Idaho 521, 523 , 960 P.2d 742, 744 (1998). 2023There are two required elements of a boundary by agreement claim: “(1) [T]here must be an uncertain or disputed boundary, and (2) a subsequent agreement fixing the boundary.” Luce, 142 Idaho at 271 , 127 P.3d at 174 ; see also Johnson v. Newport, 131 Idaho 521, 523 , 960 P.2d 742, 744 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
Weitz v. Greengreen2 sentences2019See Weitz, 148 Idaho at 860 , 230 P.3d at 752 . 2019See Weitz, 148 Idaho at 860 , 230 P.3d at 752 . | 1 | 1 |
O'Malley v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2009“Boundary by agreement or acquiescence has two elements: (1) there must be an uncertain or disputed boundary and (2) a subsequent agreement fixing the boundary.” Downey v. Vavold, 144 Idaho 592, 595 , 166 P.3d 382, 385 (2007). “[A]n agreement may be presumed to arise between adjoining landowners where such right has been definitely defined by erection of a fence or other monument on the line followed by such adjoining landowners treating it as fixing the boundary for such length of time that neither ought to be allowed to deny the correctness of its location.” Edgeller v. Johnston, 74 Idaho 35 2009“Boundary by agreement or acquiescence has two elements: (1) there must be an uncertain or disputed boundary and (2) a subsequent agreement fixing the boundary.” Downey v. Vavold, 144 Idaho 592, 595 , 166 P.3d 382, 385 (2007). “[A]n agreement may be presumed to arise between adjoining landowners where such right has been definitely defined by erection of a fence or other monument on the line followed by such adjoining landowners treating it as fixing the boundary for such length of time that neither ought to be allowed to deny the correctness of its location.” Edgeller v. Johnston, 74 Idaho 35 | 1 | 1 |
Edgeller v. Johnstongreen2 sentences2009“Boundary by agreement or acquiescence has two elements: (1) there must be an uncertain or disputed boundary and (2) a subsequent agreement fixing the boundary.” Downey v. Vavold, 144 Idaho 592, 595 , 166 P.3d 382, 385 (2007). “[A]n agreement may be presumed to arise between adjoining landowners where such right has been definitely defined by erection of a fence or other monument on the line followed by such adjoining landowners treating it as fixing the boundary for such length of time that neither ought to be allowed to deny the correctness of its location.” Edgeller v. Johnston, 74 Idaho 35 2009“Boundary by agreement or acquiescence has two elements: (1) there must be an uncertain or disputed boundary and (2) a subsequent agreement fixing the boundary.” Downey v. Vavold, 144 Idaho 592, 595 , 166 P.3d 382, 385 (2007). “[A]n agreement may be presumed to arise between adjoining landowners where such right has been definitely defined by erection of a fence or other monument on the line followed by such adjoining landowners treating it as fixing the boundary for such length of time that neither ought to be allowed to deny the correctness of its location.” Edgeller v. Johnston, 74 Idaho 35 | 1 | 1 |
Morrissey v. Haleygreen2 sentences2009“Boundary by agreement or acquiescence has two elements: (1) there must be an uncertain or disputed boundary and (2) a subsequent agreement fixing the boundary.” Downey v. Vavold, 144 Idaho 592, 595 , 166 P.3d 382, 385 (2007). “[A]n agreement may be presumed to arise between adjoining landowners where such right has been definitely defined by erection of a fence or other monument on the line followed by such adjoining landowners treating it as fixing the boundary for such length of time that neither ought to be allowed to deny the correctness of its location.” Edgeller v. Johnston, 74 Idaho 35 2009“Boundary by agreement or acquiescence has two elements: (1) there must be an uncertain or disputed boundary and (2) a subsequent agreement fixing the boundary.” Downey v. Vavold, 144 Idaho 592, 595 , 166 P.3d 382, 385 (2007). “[A]n agreement may be presumed to arise between adjoining landowners where such right has been definitely defined by erection of a fence or other monument on the line followed by such adjoining landowners treating it as fixing the boundary for such length of time that neither ought to be allowed to deny the correctness of its location.” Edgeller v. Johnston, 74 Idaho 35 | 1 | 1 |
Lindgren v. Martingreen2 sentences1998On appeal, “[a] trial court’s findings of fact in a court-tried case will be liberally construed on appeal in favor of the judgment entered, in view of the trial court’s role as trier of fact.” Lindgren v. Martin, 130 Idaho 854, 857 , 949 P.2d 1061, 1064 (1997). 1998On appeal, “[a] trial court’s findings of fact in a court-tried case will be liberally construed on appeal in favor of the judgment entered, in view of the trial court’s role as trier of fact.” Lindgren v. Martin, 130 Idaho 854, 857 , 949 P.2d 1061, 1064 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wells v. Williamson
green
2 sentences2014As we explained in Wells v. Williamson, 118 Idaho 37 , 794 P.2d 626 (1990), ‘boundary by acquiescence’ is simply another name attached to the doctrine of boundary by agreement; it is not a separate legal theory.” Downey v. Vavold, 144 Idaho 592, 595-96 , 166 P.3d 382, 385-86 (2007). 2014As we explained in Wells v. Williamson, 118 Idaho 37 , 794 P.2d 626 (1990), ‘boundary by acquiescence’ is simply another name attached to the doctrine of boundary by agreement; it is not a separate legal theory.” Downey v. Vavold, 144 Idaho 592, 595-96 , 166 P.3d 382, 385-86 (2007). | 3 | 1991–2014 |
Trappett v. Davis
green
2 sentences1998Trappett v. Davis, 102 Idaho 527 , 633 P.2d 592 (1981). 130 Idaho 898, 901 , 950 P.2d 1237, 1240 (1997). 1998Trappett v. Davis, 102 Idaho 527 , 633 P.2d 592 (1981). 130 Idaho 898, 901 , 950 P.2d 1237, 1240 (1997). | 3 | 1985–1998 |
HUSKINSON v. Nelson
green
2 sentences2023From there, the district court, again quoting Huskinson v. Nelson, 152 Idaho 547 , 550–51, 272 P.3d 519 , 522–23 (2012), set out the legal requirements of the boundary by agreement doctrine 13 and explained how the existence of a long-established fence creates two presumptions satisfying those requirements: A boundary by agreement requires two things: (1) an uncertain or disputed legal boundary and (2) an agreement between neighboring landowners as to what will be the boundary. 2023From there, the district court, again quoting Huskinson v. Nelson, 152 Idaho 547 , 550–51, 272 P.3d 519 , 522–23 (2012), set out the legal requirements of the boundary by agreement doctrine 13 and explained how the existence of a long-established fence creates two presumptions satisfying those requirements: A boundary by agreement requires two things: (1) an uncertain or disputed legal boundary and (2) an agreement between neighboring landowners as to what will be the boundary. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Berg v. Fairman
green
2 sentences2018Thus, "[w]hile Idaho cases do recognize the doctrine of boundary by agreement, an orally agreed upon boundary cannot constitute the actual boundary between two pieces of property unless the true boundary line is 'unknown to the parties and is uncertain or in dispute.' " Berg , 107 Idaho at 444 , 690 P.2d at 899 (quoting Hyde v. Lawson , 94 Idaho 886 , 889, 499 P.2d 1242 , 1245 (1972) ). 2018Thus, "[w]hile Idaho cases do recognize the doctrine of boundary by agreement, an orally agreed upon boundary cannot constitute the actual boundary between two pieces of property unless the true boundary line is 'unknown to the parties and is uncertain or in dispute.' " Berg , 107 Idaho at 444 , 690 P.2d at 899 (quoting Hyde v. Lawson , 94 Idaho 886 , 889, 499 P.2d 1242 , 1245 (1972) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Broadhead v. Hawley
neutral
2 sentences1991Broadhead v. Hawley, 109 Idaho 952 , 712 P.2d 653 (Ct.App.1985); Herrmann v. Woodell, 107 Idaho 916 , 693 P.2d 1118 (Ct.App.1985); Norwood v. Stevens, 104 Idaho 44 , 655 P.2d 938 (Ct.App.1982); Wells v. Williamson, 118 Idaho 48 , 794 P.2d 637 (Ct.App.1989) aff'd 118 Idaho 37 , 794 E.2d 626 (1990). 2 . 1991Broadhead v. Hawley, 109 Idaho 952 , 712 P.2d 653 (Ct.App.1985); Herrmann v. Woodell, 107 Idaho 916 , 693 P.2d 1118 (Ct.App.1985); Norwood v. Stevens, 104 Idaho 44 , 655 P.2d 938 (Ct.App.1982); Wells v. Williamson, 118 Idaho 48 , 794 P.2d 637 (Ct.App.1989) aff'd 118 Idaho 37 , 794 E.2d 626 (1990). 2 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Wells v. Williamson
neutral
2 sentences1991Broadhead v. Hawley, 109 Idaho 952 , 712 P.2d 653 (Ct.App.1985); Herrmann v. Woodell, 107 Idaho 916 , 693 P.2d 1118 (Ct.App.1985); Norwood v. Stevens, 104 Idaho 44 , 655 P.2d 938 (Ct.App.1982); Wells v. Williamson, 118 Idaho 48 , 794 P.2d 637 (Ct.App.1989) aff'd 118 Idaho 37 , 794 E.2d 626 (1990). 2 . 1991Broadhead v. Hawley, 109 Idaho 952 , 712 P.2d 653 (Ct.App.1985); Herrmann v. Woodell, 107 Idaho 916 , 693 P.2d 1118 (Ct.App.1985); Norwood v. Stevens, 104 Idaho 44 , 655 P.2d 938 (Ct.App.1982); Wells v. Williamson, 118 Idaho 48 , 794 P.2d 637 (Ct.App.1989) aff'd 118 Idaho 37 , 794 E.2d 626 (1990). 2 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Herrmann v. Woodell
green
2 sentences1991Broadhead v. Hawley, 109 Idaho 952 , 712 P.2d 653 (Ct.App.1985); Herrmann v. Woodell, 107 Idaho 916 , 693 P.2d 1118 (Ct.App.1985); Norwood v. Stevens, 104 Idaho 44 , 655 P.2d 938 (Ct.App.1982); Wells v. Williamson, 118 Idaho 48 , 794 P.2d 637 (Ct.App.1989) aff'd 118 Idaho 37 , 794 E.2d 626 (1990). 2 . 1991Broadhead v. Hawley, 109 Idaho 952 , 712 P.2d 653 (Ct.App.1985); Herrmann v. Woodell, 107 Idaho 916 , 693 P.2d 1118 (Ct.App.1985); Norwood v. Stevens, 104 Idaho 44 , 655 P.2d 938 (Ct.App.1982); Wells v. Williamson, 118 Idaho 48 , 794 P.2d 637 (Ct.App.1989) aff'd 118 Idaho 37 , 794 E.2d 626 (1990). 2 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Downing v. Boehringer
green
2 sentences1984As has been stated, “Where the location of a true boundary line between coterminous owners is known to either of the parties, or is not uncertain, and is not in dispute, an oral agreement between them purporting to establish another line as the boundary between their properties constitutes an attempt to convey real property in violation of the statute of frauds ... and is invalid.” Gameson v. Remer, supra at 791, 537 P.2d at 633 ; Downing v. Boehringer, 82 Idaho 52 , 349 P.2d 306 (1960). 1984As has been stated, “Where the location of a true boundary line between coterminous owners is known to either of the parties, or is not uncertain, and is not in dispute, an oral agreement between them purporting to establish another line as the boundary between their properties constitutes an attempt to convey real property in violation of the statute of frauds ... and is invalid.” Gameson v. Remer, supra at 791, 537 P.2d at 633 ; Downing v. Boehringer, 82 Idaho 52 , 349 P.2d 306 (1960). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Gameson v. Remer
green
2 sentences1984As has been stated, “Where the location of a true boundary line between coterminous owners is known to either of the parties, or is not uncertain, and is not in dispute, an oral agreement between them purporting to establish another line as the boundary between their properties constitutes an attempt to convey real property in violation of the statute of frauds ... and is invalid.” Gameson v. Remer, supra at 791, 537 P.2d at 633 ; Downing v. Boehringer, 82 Idaho 52 , 349 P.2d 306 (1960). 1984As has been stated, "Where the location of a true boundary line between coterminous owners is known to either of the parties, or is not uncertain, and is not in dispute, an oral agreement between them purporting to establish another line as the boundary between their properties constitutes an attempt to convey real property in violation of the statute of frauds ... and is invalid." Gameson v. Remer, supra at 791, 537 P.2d at 633 ; Downing v. Boehringer, 82 Idaho 52 , 349 P.2d 306 (1960). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.