14 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1904–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Berrygreen2 sentences1987See, e.g., In Re Berry, 68 Cal.2d 137 , 65 Cal. Rptr. 273, 280 , 436 P.2d 273, 280 (1968) ("any acts which exceed the defined power of a court in any instance, whether that power be defined by constitutional provision, express statutory declaration, or rules developed by the courts and followed under the doctrine of stare decisis, are in excess of jurisdiction."); Cox, The Void Order and the Duty to Obey, 16 U.CHI.L.REV. 86, 90 (1948) (hereinafter Cox) (noting that the United States Supreme Court has "extended the concept of jurisdiction ... into areas where the propriety of its application is 1987See, e.g., In Re Berry, 68 Cal.2d 137 , 65 Cal. Rptr. 273, 280 , 436 P.2d 273, 280 (1968) ("any acts which exceed the defined power of a court in any instance, whether that power be defined by constitutional provision, express statutory declaration, or rules developed by the courts and followed under the doctrine of stare decisis, are in excess of jurisdiction."); Cox, The Void Order and the Duty to Obey, 16 U.CHI.L.REV. 86, 90 (1948) (hereinafter Cox) (noting that the United States Supreme Court has "extended the concept of jurisdiction ... into areas where the propriety of its application is | 2 | 2 |
State v. Dameniel Preston Owensgreen2 sentences2016Stare decisis requires that this Court follow “controlling precedent unless that precedent is manifestly wrong, has proven over time to be unjust or unwise, or overruling that precedent is necessary to vindicate plain, obvious principles of law and remedy continued injustice.” State v. Owens, 158 Idaho 1 , 4–5, 343 P.3d 30 , 33–34 (2015). 2016Stare decisis requires that this Court follow “controlling precedent unless that precedent is manifestly wrong, has proven over time to be unjust or unwise, or overruling that precedent is necessary to vindicate plain, obvious principles of law and remedy continued injustice.” State v. Owens, 158 Idaho 1 , 4–5, 343 P.3d 30 , 33–34 (2015). | 1 | 2 |
A & B Irrigation District v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Invoking the doctrine of stare decisis, the Districts assert that since “this Court previously interpreted the very statute at issue in this case, and has held that it requires ‘material injury’ for administration, IDWR is bound to follow that decision.” See, e.g., In re SRBA, 157 Idaho 385, 393 , 336 P.3d 792, 800 (2014). 2024Invoking the doctrine of stare decisis, the Districts assert that since “this Court previously interpreted the very statute at issue in this case, and has held that it requires ‘material injury’ for administration, IDWR is bound to follow that decision.” See, e.g., In re SRBA, 157 Idaho 385, 393 , 336 P.3d 792, 800 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
Brent Regan v. Jeff Owengreen2 sentences2019Regan, 163 Idaho at 363, 413 P.3d at 763 . 2019Regan, 163 Idaho at 363, 413 P.3d at 763. | 1 | 1 |
City of Weippe v. Yarnogreen2 sentences1993See Petersen v. State, 87 Idaho 361 , 393 P.2d 585 (1964); see also City of Weippe v. Yarno, 96 Idaho 319 , 528 P.2d 201 (1974). 1993See Petersen v. State, 87 Idaho 361 , 393 P.2d 585 (1964); see also City of Weippe v. Yarno, 96 Idaho 319 , 528 P.2d 201 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
Petersen v. Stategreen2 sentences1993See Petersen v. State, 87 Idaho 361 , 393 P.2d 585 (1964); see also City of Weippe v. Yarno, 96 Idaho 319 , 528 P.2d 201 (1974). 1993See Petersen v. State, 87 Idaho 361 , 393 P.2d 585 (1964); see also City of Weippe v. Yarno, 96 Idaho 319 , 528 P.2d 201 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Nunnenkampgreen2 sentences1966See also Walker v. Nunnenkamp, 84 Idaho 485 , 373 P.2d 559 (1962). 1966See also Walker v. Nunnenkamp, 84 Idaho 485 , 373 P.2d 559 (1962). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Clear Springs Foods, Inc. v. Spackman
green
1 sentence2024Because we accept IDWR’s third argument above, we conclude that Clear Springs is not controlling in this case. 32 In Clear Springs, a delivery call had been made; thus, the CM Rules applied. 150 Idaho at 796, 252 P.3d at 77 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Sun Valley Co. v. City of Sun Valley
green
2 sentences2002NOTES [1] This Court has previously upheld the constitutionality of the local option tax in Sun Valley Co., v. City of Sun Valley, 109 Idaho 424 , 708 P.2d 147 (1985). 2002NOTES [1] This Court has previously upheld the constitutionality of the local option tax in Sun Valley Co., v. City of Sun Valley, 109 Idaho 424 , 708 P.2d 147 (1985). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Duthie v. Lewiston Gun Club
green
2 sentences1989(A notable exception is the aberration, Duthie v. Lewiston Gun Club, 104 Idaho 751 , 663 P.2d 287 (1983).) In Idaho that doctrine may henceforth be escalated to mean that all prior cases will be upheld and applied no matter how ill-principled *215 or wrongly decided. 1989(A notable exception is the aberration, Duthie v. Lewiston Gun Club, 104 Idaho 751 , 663 P.2d 287 (1983).) In Idaho that doctrine may henceforth be escalated to mean that all prior cases will be upheld and applied no matter how ill-principled *215 or wrongly decided. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Scott v. Gossett
green
1 sentence1946Paragraph II of his points and authorities state: “The rule of Woods v. Bragaw should be followed under the doctrine of stare decisis,” and cites Scott v. Gossett, Idaho, 158 P.2d 804, 807 . | 1 | 1946–1946 |
Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal
green
2 sentences1945In Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal. (2d) 280, 291, 109 P. (2d) 942, 948 , 132 A.L.R. 715 , the court said: ‘Speaking generally, any acts which exceed the defined power of a court in any instance, whether that power be defined by constitutional provision, express statutory declaration, or rules developed by the courts and followed under the doctrine of stare decisis, are in excess of jurisdiction.’ ” In the case of Baker, et al, v. Firemen’s Fund Insurance Company (Cal.), 14 P. 686 , and in which the defendant demanded a change of place of trial to the city and county-of San Franc 1945In Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal. (2d) 280, 291, 109 P. (2d) 942, 948 , 132 A.L.R. 715 , the court said: ‘Speaking generally, any acts which exceed the defined power of a court in any instance, whether that power be defined by constitutional provision, express statutory declaration, or rules developed by the courts and followed under the doctrine of stare decisis, are in excess of jurisdiction.’ ” In the case of Baker, et al, v. Firemen’s Fund Insurance Company (Cal.), 14 P. 686 , and in which the defendant demanded a change of place of trial to the city and county-of San Franc | 1 | 1945–1945 |
Baker v. Fireman's Fund Insurance
neutral
1 sentence1945In Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal. (2d) 280, 291, 109 P. (2d) 942, 948 , 132 A.L.R. 715 , the court said: ‘Speaking generally, any acts which exceed the defined power of a court in any instance, whether that power be defined by constitutional provision, express statutory declaration, or rules developed by the courts and followed under the doctrine of stare decisis, are in excess of jurisdiction.’ ” In the case of Baker, et al, v. Firemen’s Fund Insurance Company (Cal.), 14 P. 686 , and in which the defendant demanded a change of place of trial to the city and county-of San Franc | 1 | 1945–1945 |
Papesh v. Wagnon
neutral
1 sentence1927Among the decisions of this court may be cited Papest v. Wagnon, 29 Ida. 93 , 157 Pac. 775 ; and see 25 Cal. Jur. 797, see. 254. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Ward v. Missouri, K. & O. Ry. Co.
neutral
1 sentence1927Among the decisions of this court may be cited Papest v. Wagnon, 29 Ida. 93 , 157 Pac. 775 ; and see 25 Cal. Jur. 797, see. 254. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Manning v. Bowman
neutral
2 sentences1904Having expressed my views in a former decision of this court as to the constitutionality of the law in question (Sweet v. Ballentine, 8 Idaho, 431 , 69 Pac. 995 ), I will only discuss the application of the doctrine of stare decisis as applied to the case at bar by my associates. 1904Having expressed my views in a former decision of this court as to the constitutionality of the law in question (Sweet v. Ballentine, 8 Idaho, 431 , 69 Pac. 995 ), I will only discuss the application of the doctrine of stare decisis as applied to the case at bar by my associates. | 1 | 1904–1904 |
Sweet v. Ballentyne
neutral
2 sentences1904Having expressed my views in a former decision of this court as to the constitutionality of the law in question (Sweet v. Ballentine, 8 Idaho, 431 , 69 Pac. 995 ), I will only discuss the application of the doctrine of stare decisis as applied to the case at bar by my associates. 1904Having expressed my views in a former decision of this court as to the constitutionality of the law in question (Sweet v. Ballentine, 8 Idaho, 431 , 69 Pac. 995 ), I will only discuss the application of the doctrine of stare decisis as applied to the case at bar by my associates. | 1 | 1904–1904 |
Parke v. Boulware
neutral
1 sentence1904This being my first opportunity to express my views on the question that was at issue in that case —Parke v. Boulware, ante, p. 225, 73 Pac. 19—I now give it my full and unqualified approval. | 1 | 1904–1904 |
Martin's v. Martin
green
1 sentence1904It is probable that the records of many of the courts in this country are replete with hasty and crude decisions; and such cases ought to be examined without fear and reversed without reluctance, rather than have the character of our law impaired, and the beauty and harmony of the system destroyed by the perpetuity of the error.” Again, it is said: “Even a series of decisions is not always conclusive evidence of what is law; and the revision of a decision very often resolves itself into a mere question of expediency, depending upon the consideration of the importance of certainty in the rule, | 1 | 1904–1904 |
Houghton v. Austin
green
1 sentence1904It is probable that the records of many of the courts in this country are replete with hasty and crude decisions; and such cases ought to be examined without fear and reversed without reluctance, rather than have the character of our law impaired, and the beauty and harmony of the system destroyed by the perpetuity of the error.” Again, it is said: “Even a series of decisions is not always conclusive evidence of what is law; and the revision of a decision very often resolves itself into a mere question of expediency, depending upon the consideration of the importance of certainty in the rule, | 1 | 1904–1904 |
Willis v. Owen
green
1 sentence1904And it would be especially dangerous to apply this inexorable-standard to questions decisive of the constitutional rights of the citizen.' (Houghton v. Austin, 47 Cal. 666 .) The supreme court of Texas in a very elaborate and well-considered opinion (Willis v. Owen, 43 Tex. 41 ) on pages 48, 49, speaks in no uncertain terms as to the application of the doctrine of stare decisis: “This doctrine grows out of the necessity for a uniform and settled rule of property, and definite basis for contracts and business transactions. | 1 | 1904–1904 |
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.