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 1975–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Merrill v. Gibsongreen2 sentences2017“Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless the ruling is a manifest abuse of *132 the trial court’s discretion and a substantial right of the party is affected.” Burgess v. Salmon River Canal Co., 127 Idaho 565, 574 , 903 P.2d 730, 739 (1995). “[T]he burden is on the person asserting error to show an abuse of discretion.” Merrill v. Gibson, 139 Idaho 840, 843 , 87 P.3d 949, 952 (2004). 2017“Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless the ruling is a manifest abuse of *132 the trial court’s discretion and a substantial right of the party is affected.” Burgess v. Salmon River Canal Co., 127 Idaho 565, 574 , 903 P.2d 730, 739 (1995). “[T]he burden is on the person asserting error to show an abuse of discretion.” Merrill v. Gibson, 139 Idaho 840, 843 , 87 P.3d 949, 952 (2004). | 4 | 4 |
KTVB, INC. v. Boise Citygreen2 sentences2012More specifically, we have held that “[q]uasi-estoppel is properly invoked against a person asserting a claim inconsistent with a position previously taken by that person with knowledge of the facts and his or her rights, to the detriment of the person seeking application of the doctrine.” The Highlands, Inc. v. Hosac, 130 Idaho 67, 70 , 936 P.2d 1309, 1312 (1997) (citing KTVB, Inc. v. Boise City, 94 Idaho 279, 282 , 486 P.2d 992, 995 (1971)). 2012More specifically, we have held that “[q]uasi-estoppel is properly invoked against a person asserting a claim inconsistent with a position previously taken by that person with knowledge of the facts and his or her rights, to the detriment of the person seeking application of the doctrine.” The Highlands, Inc. v. Hosac, 130 Idaho 67, 70 , 936 P.2d 1309, 1312 (1997) (citing KTVB, Inc. v. Boise City, 94 Idaho 279, 282 , 486 P.2d 992, 995 (1971)). | 3 | 4 |
Burgess v. Salmon River Canal Co., Ltd.green2 sentences2017“Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless the ruling is a manifest abuse of *132 the trial court’s discretion and a substantial right of the party is affected.” Burgess v. Salmon River Canal Co., 127 Idaho 565, 574 , 903 P.2d 730, 739 (1995). “[T]he burden is on the person asserting error to show an abuse of discretion.” Merrill v. Gibson, 139 Idaho 840, 843 , 87 P.3d 949, 952 (2004). 2017“Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless the ruling is a manifest abuse of *132 the trial court’s discretion and a substantial right of the party is affected.” Burgess v. Salmon River Canal Co., 127 Idaho 565, 574 , 903 P.2d 730, 739 (1995). “[T]he burden is on the person asserting error to show an abuse of discretion.” Merrill v. Gibson, 139 Idaho 840, 843 , 87 P.3d 949, 952 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
O'Connor v. Harger Construction, Inc.green2 sentences2017“A trial court does not abuse its discretion if it (1) coiTeetly perceives the issue as discretionary, (2) acts within the bounds of discretion and applies the correct legal standards, and (3) reaches the decision through an exercise of reason.” O’Connor v. Harger Constr., Inc., 145 Idaho 904, 909 , 188 P.3d 846, 851 (2008). 1. 2017“A trial court does not abuse its discretion if it (1) coiTeetly perceives the issue as discretionary, (2) acts within the bounds of discretion and applies the correct legal standards, and (3) reaches the decision through an exercise of reason.” O’Connor v. Harger Constr., Inc., 145 Idaho 904, 909 , 188 P.3d 846, 851 (2008). 1. | 1 | 1 |
The Highlands, Inc. v. Hosacgreen2 sentences2012More specifically, we have held that “[q]uasi-estoppel is properly invoked against a person asserting a claim inconsistent with a position previously taken by that person with knowledge of the facts and his or her rights, to the detriment of the person seeking application of the doctrine.” The Highlands, Inc. v. Hosac, 130 Idaho 67, 70 , 936 P.2d 1309, 1312 (1997) (citing KTVB, Inc. v. Boise City, 94 Idaho 279, 282 , 486 P.2d 992, 995 (1971)). 2012More specifically, we have held that “[q]uasi-estoppel is properly invoked against a person asserting a claim inconsistent with a position previously taken by that person with knowledge of the facts and his or her rights, to the detriment of the person seeking application of the doctrine.” The Highlands, Inc. v. Hosac, 130 Idaho 67, 70 , 936 P.2d 1309, 1312 (1997) (citing KTVB, Inc. v. Boise City, 94 Idaho 279, 282 , 486 P.2d 992, 995 (1971)). | 1 | 1 |
Martsch v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2011“A person asserting a claim of damages has the burden of proving not only a right to damages, but also the amount of damages.” Martsch v. Nelson, 109 Idaho 95, 100 , 705 P.2d 1050, 1055 (Ct.App.1985). 2011“A person asserting a claim of damages has the burden of proving not only a right to damages, but also the amount of damages.” Martsch v. Nelson, 109 Idaho 95, 100 , 705 P.2d 1050, 1055 (Ct.App.1985). | 1 | 1 |
Willig v. State, Department of Health & Welfaregreen2 sentences1997KTVB, Inc. v. Boise City, 94 Idaho 279, 282 , 486 P.2d 992, 995 (1971); see also Willig v. Dep’t. of Health & Welfare, 127 Idaho 259, 261 , 899 P.2d 969, 971 (1995); Mitchell v. Zilog, Inc., 125 Idaho 709, 715 , 874 P.2d 520, 526 (1994). 1997KTVB, Inc. v. Boise City, 94 Idaho 279, 282 , 486 P.2d 992, 995 (1971); see also Willig v. Dep’t. of Health & Welfare, 127 Idaho 259, 261 , 899 P.2d 969, 971 (1995); Mitchell v. Zilog, Inc., 125 Idaho 709, 715 , 874 P.2d 520, 526 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Zilog, Inc.green2 sentences1997KTVB, Inc. v. Boise City, 94 Idaho 279, 282 , 486 P.2d 992, 995 (1971); see also Willig v. Dep’t. of Health & Welfare, 127 Idaho 259, 261 , 899 P.2d 969, 971 (1995); Mitchell v. Zilog, Inc., 125 Idaho 709, 715 , 874 P.2d 520, 526 (1994). 1997KTVB, Inc. v. Boise City, 94 Idaho 279, 282 , 486 P.2d 992, 995 (1971); see also Willig v. Dep’t. of Health & Welfare, 127 Idaho 259, 261 , 899 P.2d 969, 971 (1995); Mitchell v. Zilog, Inc., 125 Idaho 709, 715 , 874 P.2d 520, 526 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Beare v. Stowes' Builders Supply, Inc.green2 sentences1985“A person asserting a claim of damages has the burden of proving not only a right to damages, but also the amount of damages.” Beare v. Stowe’s Builders Supply, Inc., 104 Idaho 317, 321 , 658 P.2d 988, 992 (Ct.App.1983). 1985“A person asserting a claim of damages has the burden of proving not only a right to damages, but also the amount of damages.” Beare v. Stowe’s Builders Supply, Inc., 104 Idaho 317, 321 , 658 P.2d 988, 992 (Ct.App.1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. Ethington
green
2 sentences2005Merrill v. Gibson, 139 Idaho 840, 843 , 87 P.3d 949, 952 (2004); Anderson v. Ethington, 103 Idaho 658 , 651 P.2d 923 (1982). 2005Merrill v. Gibson, 139 Idaho 840, 843 , 87 P.3d 949, 952 (2004); Anderson v. Ethington, 103 Idaho 658 , 651 P.2d 923 (1982). | 2 | 2004–2005 |
Edgar v. State
green
2 sentences1986Thus, the Edgar court, like this Court, read its tort claims act to require "a person asserting a claim against the state to show that the conduct complained of constitutes a tort which would be actionable if it were done by a private person in a private setting." Id. at 595 P.2d 539 (emphasis added). 1986Thus, the Edgar court, like this Court, read its tort claims act to require "a person asserting a claim against the state to show that the conduct complained of constitutes a tort which would be actionable if it were done by a private person in a private setting." Id. 595 P.2d at 539 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Fish v. Fleishman
green
2 sentences1983Fish v. Fleishman, 87 Idaho 126 , 391 P.2d 344 (1964). 1983Fish v. Fleishman, 87 Idaho 126 , 391 P.2d 344 (1964). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Evans v. Idaho State Tax Commission
green
2 sentences1977Evans v. Idaho State Tax Commission, 97 Idaho 148 , 540 P.2d 810 (1975). 1977Evans v. Idaho State Tax Commission, 97 Idaho 148 , 540 P.2d 810 (1975). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.