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 1888–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Phillips v. Eastern ID Health Svcsgreen1 sentence2026In Phillips, the defendant physician was board-eligible rather than board-certified and this Court therefore had no occasion to apply Dlouhy. 166 Idaho at 748 , 463 P.3d at 382. | 1 | 1 |
Mattox v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc.green2 sentences2025See Mattox v. Life Care Centers of Am., Inc., 157 Idaho 468, 474 , 337 P.3d 627, 633 (2014) (holding that the foundation requirement is not intended to be overly burdensome, but the proposed expert must identify the standard of care at issue, the grounds for claiming knowledge of that 22 standard, and determine—employing a measure of common sense—whether those grounds would likely give rise to knowledge of that standard); Dulaney v. St. 2025See Mattox v. Life Care Centers of Am., Inc., 157 Idaho 468, 474 , 337 P.3d 627, 633 (2014) (holding that the foundation requirement is not intended to be overly burdensome, but the proposed expert must identify the standard of care at issue, the grounds for claiming knowledge of that 22 standard, and determine—employing a measure of common sense—whether those grounds would likely give rise to knowledge of that standard); Dulaney v. St. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Uhlrygreen2 sentences2002State v. Uhlry, 121 Idaho 1020, 1022 , 829 P.2d 1369, 1371 (Ct.App.1992). 2002State v. Uhlry, 121 Idaho 1020, 1022 , 829 P.2d 1369, 1371 (Ct.App.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Giffen v. City of Lewistongreen2 sentences1983See, e.g., Alsup v. Saratoga Hotel, Inc., supra; Giffen v. City of Lewiston, 6 Idaho 231 , 55 P. 545 (1898). 1983See, e.g., Alsup v. Saratoga Hotel, Inc., supra; Giffen v. City of Lewiston, 6 Idaho 231 , 55 P. 545 (1898). | 1 | 1 |
Foster v. Diehl Lumber Co.green2 sentences1982Their intention of later solemnizing the marriage by a civil ceremony could not operate to defeat the marriage already accomplished.... “ ‘ “The presumption of marriage, from a cohabitation, apparently matrimonial, is one of the strongest presumptions known to the law. * * * Where there is enough to create a foundation for the presumption of marriage, it can be repelled only by the most cogent and satisfactory evidence.” ’ (Citation omitted.) “Viewed in the light of this presumption, there is a want of substantial evidence to support the order of the board denying compensation to appellant." 7 1982Their intention of later solemnizing the marriage by a civil ceremony could not operate to defeat the marriage already accomplished.... “ ‘ “The presumption of marriage, from a cohabitation, apparently matrimonial, is one of the strongest presumptions known to the law. * * * Where there is enough to create a foundation for the presumption of marriage, it can be repelled only by the most cogent and satisfactory evidence.” ’ (Citation omitted.) “Viewed in the light of this presumption, there is a want of substantial evidence to support the order of the board denying compensation to appellant." 7 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sloan v. West
green
2 sentences1987Rep. 677 ; Sloan v. West, 50 Wash. 86 , 96 Pac. 684 ,17 L.R.A. 1987Rep. 677 ; Sloan v. West, 50 Wash. 86 , 96 Pac. 684 ,17 L.R.A. | 2 | 1919–1987 |
Smith v. Smith
green
2 sentences1971Where there is enough to create a foundation for the presumption of marriage, it can be repelled only by the most cogent and satisfactory evidence.’ ” 32 Idaho at 482 , 185 P. at 69 . 1971Where there is enough to create a foundation for the presumption of marriage, it can be repelled only by the most cogent and satisfactory evidence.’ ” 32 Idaho at 482 , 185 P. at 69 . | 2 | 1971–1971 |
Mauldin v. Sunshine Mining Co.
green
2 sentences1955The board’s finding that defendants did not deny claimant’s status without reasonable ground is supported by competent evidence. “ ‘ “The presumption of marriage, from a cohabitation, apparently matrimonial, is one of the strongest presumptions known to the law. * * * Where there is enough to create a foundation for the presumption of marriage, it can be repelled only by the most cogent and satisfactory evidence.” ’ ” Mauldin v. Sunshine Mining Co., 61 Idaho 9 , at pages 17 and 18, 97 P.2d 608 , at page 611. 1955The board’s finding that defendants did not deny claimant’s status without reasonable ground is supported by competent evidence. “ ‘ “The presumption of marriage, from a cohabitation, apparently matrimonial, is one of the strongest presumptions known to the law. * * * Where there is enough to create a foundation for the presumption of marriage, it can be repelled only by the most cogent and satisfactory evidence.” ’ ” Mauldin v. Sunshine Mining Co., 61 Idaho 9 , at pages 17 and 18, 97 P.2d 608 , at page 611. | 2 | 1955–1955 |
State v. Crea
green
2 sentences1999In Faught , the Idaho Supreme Court confirmed that the correct approach regarding foundation for scientific evidence is that which it had taken in State v. Crea, 119 Idaho 352 , 806 P.2d 445 (1991). 1999In Faught , the Idaho Supreme Court confirmed that the correct approach regarding foundation for scientific evidence is that which it had taken in State v. Crea, 119 Idaho 352 , 806 P.2d 445 (1991). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Bell
green
2 sentences1992I.R.E. 104; State v. Bell, 115 Idaho at 40 , 764 P.2d at 117 . 1992I.R.E. 104; State v. Bell, 115 Idaho at 40 , 764 P.2d at 117 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Hynes v. . McDermott
green
1 sentence1919Where there is enough to create a foundation for the presumption of. .marriage, it can be repelled only by the most cogent and satisfactory evidence.” (Hynes et al. v. McDermott et al., 91 N. Y. 451, at 459 , 43 Am. | 1 | 1919–1919 |
Curtiss v. Sprague
neutral
1 sentence1917This question is closely allied with the question raised in the discussion in the pleadings, supra. In Curtiss v. Sprague, supra, it was held that where a defendant set up a counterclaim, which was barred by the statr ute of limitations, plaintiff would be considered to have pleaded the statute by way of replication. | 1 | 1917–1917 |
Deasey v. Thurman
neutral
1 sentence1888In Deasey v. Thurman, 1 Idaho, 775 , it was held that, “when the court instructs a jury upon what state of facts they must find a verdict for or against either party, the instructions should include all the facts in the controversy material to the rights of the parties upon the claim of the plaintiff or the defense of the defendant.” In an action of claim and delivery, the plaintiff must establish, as the foundation of his claim, either absolute ownership of the property, or his right to the possession thereof through some special interest in it. | 1 | 1888–1888 |
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.