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 2007–2026 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hindmarsh v. Mockgreen2 sentences2023“The doctrine of res judicata covers both claim preclusion (true res judicata) and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel).” Ticor Title Co. v. Stanion, 144 Idaho 119, 123 , 157 P.3d 613, 617 (2007) (citing Hindmarsh, 138 Idaho at 94 , 57 P.3d at 805 ). 2023“The doctrine of res judicata covers both claim preclusion (true res judicata) and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel).” Ticor Title Co. v. Stanion, 144 Idaho 119, 123 , 157 P.3d 613, 617 (2007) (citing Hindmarsh, 138 Idaho at 94 , 57 P.3d at 805 ). | 7 | 8 |
Ticor Title Co. v. Staniongreen2 sentences2023“The doctrine of res judicata covers both claim preclusion (true res judicata) and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel).” Ticor Title Co. v. Stanion, 144 Idaho 119, 123 , 157 P.3d 613, 617 (2007) (citing Hindmarsh, 138 Idaho at 94 , 57 P.3d at 805 ). 2023“The doctrine of res judicata covers both claim preclusion (true res judicata) and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel).” Ticor Title Co. v. Stanion, 144 Idaho 119, 123 , 157 P.3d 613, 617 (2007) (citing Hindmarsh, 138 Idaho at 94 , 57 P.3d at 805 ). | 3 | 7 |
Berkshire Investments, LLC v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2026“Claim preclusion bars a subsequent action between the same parties upon the same claim or upon claims relating to the same cause of action.” Elsaesser v. Riverside Farms, Inc., 170 Idaho 502 , 508, 513 P.3d 438, 444 (2022) (quoting Berkshire Invs., LLC v. Taylor, 153 Idaho 73, 81 , 278 P.3d 943, 951 (2012)). 2026“Claim preclusion bars a subsequent action between the same parties upon the same claim or upon claims relating to the same cause of action.” Elsaesser v. Riverside Farms, Inc., 170 Idaho 502 , 508, 513 P.3d 438, 444 (2022) (quoting Berkshire Invs., LLC v. Taylor, 153 Idaho 73, 81 , 278 P.3d 943, 951 (2012)). | 1 | 1 |
Monitor Fin., L.C. v. Wildlife Ridge Estates, LLCgreen2 sentences2026“The doctrine of res judicata covers both claim preclusion 11 (true res judicata) and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel).” Monitor Fin., L.C. v. Wildlife Ridge Ests., LLC, 164 Idaho 555, 560 , 433 P.3d 183, 188 (2019) (citation omitted). 2026“The doctrine of res judicata covers both claim preclusion 11 (true res judicata) and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel).” Monitor Fin., L.C. v. Wildlife Ridge Ests., LLC, 164 Idaho 555, 560 , 433 P.3d 183, 188 (2019) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Elsaesser v. Riverside Farms, Inc.green1 sentence2026“Claim preclusion bars a subsequent action between the same parties upon the same claim or upon claims relating to the same cause of action.” Elsaesser v. Riverside Farms, Inc., 170 Idaho 502 , 508, 513 P.3d 438, 444 (2022) (quoting Berkshire Invs., LLC v. Taylor, 153 Idaho 73, 81 , 278 P.3d 943, 951 (2012)). | 1 | 1 |
Stoddard v. Hagadone Corp.green2 sentences2014Claim preclusion “bars a subsequent action between the same parties upon the same claim or upon claims ‘relating to the same cause of action.’ ” Stoddard v. Hagadone, 147 Idaho 186, 190 , 207 P.3d 162, 166 (2009) (quoting Hindmarsh, 138 Idaho at 94 , 57 P.3d at 805 ). 2014Claim preclusion “bars a subsequent action between the same parties upon the same claim or upon claims ‘relating to the same cause of action.’ ” Stoddard v. Hagadone, 147 Idaho 186, 190 , 207 P.3d 162, 166 (2009) (quoting Hindmarsh, 138 Idaho at 94 , 57 P.3d at 805 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.