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.
14 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1982–1999 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. State Board of Medicinegreen2 sentences1990An intermediate standard is the “means focus” test, where the court must ask “whether the legislative means substantially furthers some specifically identifiable legislative end.” Jones v. State Board of Medicine, 97 Idaho 859, 867 , 555 P.2d 399, 407 (1976). 1990An intermediate standard is the “means focus” test, where the court must ask “whether the legislative means substantially furthers some specifically identifiable legislative end.” Jones v. State Board of Medicine, 97 Idaho 859, 867 , 555 P.2d 399, 407 (1976). | 4 | 8 |
State v. Reedgreen2 sentences1993The appellants rely upon State v. Reed, 107 Idaho 162 , 686 P.2d 842 (Ct.App.1984), in support of their claim that the intermediate test is applied in cases where the statute blatantly discriminates between classes or where there are especially important interests involved and' there is legislation which creates unusually sensitive classes. 1993The appellants rely upon State v. Reed, 107 Idaho 162 , 686 P.2d 842 (Ct.App.1984), in support of their claim that the intermediate test is applied in cases where the statute blatantly discriminates between classes or where there are especially important interests involved and' there is legislation which creates unusually sensitive classes. | 1 | 2 |
State Board of Medicine v. Jonesgreen2 sentences1987In 1976, the Idaho Supreme Court interpreted that case and other U.S. Supreme Court decisions to create an intermediate standard applicable to “invidiously discriminatory classifications.” Jones v. State Board of Medicine, 97 Idaho 859, 867 , 555 P.2d 399, 407 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 914 , 97 S.Ct. 2173 , 53 L.Ed.2d 223 (1977). 1982See Jones v. State Board of Medicine, 97 Idaho 859, 867 , 555 P.2d 399, 407 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 914 , 97 S.Ct. 2173 , 53 L.Ed.2d 223 (1977). | 1 | 2 |
75.81 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situate in Grayson County v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1987In 1976, the Idaho Supreme Court interpreted that case and other U.S. Supreme Court decisions to create an intermediate standard applicable to “invidiously discriminatory classifications.” Jones v. State Board of Medicine, 97 Idaho 859, 867 , 555 P.2d 399, 407 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 914 , 97 S.Ct. 2173 , 53 L.Ed.2d 223 (1977). 1982See Jones v. State Board of Medicine, 97 Idaho 859, 867 , 555 P.2d 399, 407 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 914 , 97 S.Ct. 2173 , 53 L.Ed.2d 223 (1977). | 1 | 2 |
National Motor Freight Traffic Ass'n v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1987In 1976, the Idaho Supreme Court interpreted that case and other U.S. Supreme Court decisions to create an intermediate standard applicable to “invidiously discriminatory classifications.” Jones v. State Board of Medicine, 97 Idaho 859, 867 , 555 P.2d 399, 407 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 914 , 97 S.Ct. 2173 , 53 L.Ed.2d 223 (1977). 1982See Jones v. State Board of Medicine, 97 Idaho 859, 867 , 555 P.2d 399, 407 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 914 , 97 S.Ct. 2173 , 53 L.Ed.2d 223 (1977). | 1 | 2 |
Craig v. Borengreen2 sentences1999To survive scrutiny under the intermediate test, a statutory classification “must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives.” Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197 , 97 S.Ct. 451, 457 , 50 L.Ed.2d 397, 407 (1976). 1999To survive scrutiny under the intermediate test, a statutory classification “must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives.” Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197 , 97 S.Ct. 451, 457 , 50 L.Ed.2d 397, 407 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
Tarbox v. Tax Commissiongreen2 sentences1987See also Tarbox v. Tax Commission of Idaho, 107 Idaho 957, 960 , 695 P.2d 342, 345 (1985) (stating that the intermediate standard applies to “blatantly discriminatory” schemes). 1987See also Tarbox v. Tax Commission of Idaho, 107 Idaho 957, 960 , 695 P.2d 342, 345 (1985) (stating that the intermediate standard applies to “blatantly discriminatory” schemes). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Breedgreen2 sentences1987These circumstances do not suggest a “clearly evinced legislative purpose to discriminate.” Breed, 111 Idaho at 501 , 725 P.2d at 206 , Thus, the lead opinion today correctly applies the rational basis test rather than an intermediate standard. 1987These circumstances do not suggest a “clearly evinced legislative purpose to discriminate.” Breed, 111 Idaho at 501 , 725 P.2d at 206 , Thus, the lead opinion today correctly applies the rational basis test rather than an intermediate standard. | 1 | 1 |
Plyler v. Doegreen2 sentences1985I share the concern of Justice Powell when he noted in Plyler that “visiting ... condemnation on the head of an infant for misdeeds of the parents is illogical, unjust and contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrong doing.” Plyler, supra, 457 U.S. at 238 , 102 S.Ct. at 2406 (Powell, J., concurring); Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164, 175 , 92 S.Ct. 1400 , 31 L.Ed.2d 768 (1972). 1985I share the concern of Justice Powell when he noted in Plyler that "visiting ... condemnation on the head of an infant for misdeeds of the parents is illogical, unjust and contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrong doing." Plyler, supra, at 238 , 102 S.Ct. at 2406 (Powell, J., concurring); Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164, 175 , 92 S.Ct. 1400 , 31 L.Ed.2d 768 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Andersongreen2 sentences1983People v. Anderson, 189 Colo. 34 , 536 P.2d 302, 305 (1975). 1983People v. Anderson, 189 Colo. 34 , 536 P.2d 302, 305 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
green
2 sentences1985I share the concern of Justice Powell when he noted in Plyler that "visiting ... condemnation on the head of an infant for misdeeds of the parents is illogical, unjust and contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrong doing." Plyler, supra, at 238 , 102 S.Ct. at 2406 (Powell, J., concurring); Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164, 175 , 92 S.Ct. 1400 , 31 L.Ed.2d 768 (1972). 1985I share the concern of Justice Powell when he noted in Plyler that "visiting ... condemnation on the head of an infant for misdeeds of the parents is illogical, unjust and contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrong doing." Plyler, supra, at 238 , 102 S.Ct. at 2406 (Powell, J., concurring); Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164, 175 , 92 S.Ct. 1400 , 31 L.Ed.2d 768 (1972). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Twin Falls Clinic & Hospital Building Corp. v. Hamill
green
2 sentences1984This court has limited review under that standard to statutes of a blatantly discriminatory nature. 2 The rational basis test “requires ‘that legislation classify the persons it affects in a manner rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives.’ ” Twin Falls Clinic & Hospital Building Corporation v. Hamill, 103 Idaho 19, 24-5 , 644 P.2d 341 (1982) (quoting Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 230 , 101 S.Ct. 1074,1080 , 67 L.Ed.2d 186 (1981)). 1984This court has limited review under that standard to statutes of a blatantly discriminatory nature. 2 The rational basis test “requires ‘that legislation classify the persons it affects in a manner rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives.’ ” Twin Falls Clinic & Hospital Building Corporation v. Hamill, 103 Idaho 19, 24-5 , 644 P.2d 341 (1982) (quoting Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 230 , 101 S.Ct. 1074,1080 , 67 L.Ed.2d 186 (1981)). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Schweiker v. Wilson
green
2 sentences1984This court has limited review under that standard to statutes of a blatantly discriminatory nature. 2 The rational basis test “requires ‘that legislation classify the persons it affects in a manner rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives.’ ” Twin Falls Clinic & Hospital Building Corporation v. Hamill, 103 Idaho 19, 24-5 , 644 P.2d 341 (1982) (quoting Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 230 , 101 S.Ct. 1074,1080 , 67 L.Ed.2d 186 (1981)). 1984This court has limited review under that standard to statutes of a blatantly discriminatory nature. 2 The rational basis test “requires ‘that legislation classify the persons it affects in a manner rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives.’ ” Twin Falls Clinic & Hospital Building Corporation v. Hamill, 103 Idaho 19, 24-5 , 644 P.2d 341 (1982) (quoting Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 230 , 101 S.Ct. 1074,1080 , 67 L.Ed.2d 186 (1981)). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.