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.
13 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Walker v. Shoshone Countygreen2 sentences1999No. 231, 116 Idaho 326 , 775 P.2d 640 (1989), this Court stated that: In ruling on a motion for summary judgment based upon an immunity defense under the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA), a trial judge should first determine whether the plaintiffs’ allegations and supporting record generally state a cause of action for which “a private person or entity would be liable for money damages under the laws of the state of Idaho.” Walker v. Shoshone County, 112 Idaho 991, 995 , 739 P.2d 290, 294 (1987). 1999No. 231, 116 Idaho 326 , 775 P.2d 640 (1989), this Court stated that: In ruling on a motion for summary judgment based upon an immunity defense under the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA), a trial judge should first determine whether the plaintiffs’ allegations and supporting record generally state a cause of action for which “a private person or entity would be liable for money damages under the laws of the state of Idaho.” Walker v. Shoshone County, 112 Idaho 991, 995 , 739 P.2d 290, 294 (1987). | 4 | 6 |
Czaplicki v. Gooding Joint School District No. 231green2 sentences2023In Czaplicki v. Gooding Joint School District No. 231, we provided the standard for ruling on a motion for summary judgment where an immunity defense under the ITCA is potentially involved: In ruling on a motion for summary judgment based upon an immunity defense under the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA), a trial judge should first determine whether the plaintiffs’ allegations and supporting record generally state a cause of action for which “a private person or entity would be liable for money damages under the laws of the state of Idaho.” The court must then determine whether an exception to li 2023In Czaplicki v. Gooding Joint School District No. 231, we provided the standard for ruling on a motion for summary judgment where an immunity defense under the ITCA is potentially involved: In ruling on a motion for summary judgment based upon an immunity defense under the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA), a trial judge should first determine whether the plaintiffs’ allegations and supporting record generally state a cause of action for which “a private person or entity would be liable for money damages under the laws of the state of Idaho.” The court must then determine whether an exception to li | 2 | 4 |
Brooks v. Logangreen2 sentences1999The court must then determine whether an exception to liability under the ITCA shields the alleged misconduct from liability. 116 Idaho at 330 , 775 P.2d at 644 ; see also Brooks v. Logan, 127 Idaho 484, 487 , 903 P.2d 73, 76 (1995) (Brooks I). 1999The court must then determine whether an exception to liability under the ITCA shields the alleged misconduct from liability. 116 Idaho at 330 , 775 P.2d at 644 ; see also Brooks v. Logan, 127 Idaho 484, 487 , 903 P.2d 73, 76 (1995) (Brooks I). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Zimmerman v. City of Lewiston
green
2 sentences2025In Grabicki, we set forth “a two-step analysis for reviewing a motion for summary judgment based upon an immunity defense under the ITCA.” Id. at 690 , 203 P.3d at 30. 2025In Grabicki, we set forth “a two-step analysis for reviewing a motion for summary judgment based upon an immunity defense under the ITCA.” Id. at 690 , 302 P.3d at 30 . | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Duarte v. City of San Jose
green
2 sentences1987In Clemente , the same panel that decided Mann, supra, reiterated, 101 Cal. App.3d at pages 378-379, 161 Cal. Rptr. 799 , its narrow interpretation of the immunity statutes "essentially only to protection against crime" and "from budgetary neglect." Also in accord is the recent decision of this court (Division Three) in Duarte v. San Jose, 100 Cal. App.3d 648 , at pages 658-659, 161 Cal. Rptr. 140 , which recognized that in situations such as the instant one, officers had a duty of care toward innocent third parties like the plaintiffs here. 1987In Clemente , the same panel that decided Mann, supra, reiterated, 101 Cal. App.3d at pages 378-379, 161 Cal. Rptr. 799 , its narrow interpretation of the immunity statutes "essentially only to protection against crime" and "from budgetary neglect." Also in accord is the recent decision of this court (Division Three) in Duarte v. San Jose, 100 Cal. App.3d 648 , at pages 658-659, 161 Cal. Rptr. 140 , which recognized that in situations such as the instant one, officers had a duty of care toward innocent third parties like the plaintiffs here. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Clemente v. State of California
green
2 sentences1987The immunity defense was also rejected in Clemente v. State of California, 101 Cal. App.3d 374 , 161 Cal. Rptr. 799 . 1987The immunity defense was also rejected in Clemente v. State of California, 101 Cal. App.3d 374 , 161 Cal. Rptr. 799 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
McGehee v. Insurance Co. of North America
green
1 sentence1982Sacks v. Stecker, supra; Young v. Young, 18 F.2d 807 (D.C.Cir.1927); McGehee v. Insurance Co. of North America, 112 F. 853 (5th Cir.1902). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Sacks v. Stecker
green
2 sentences1982Sacks v. Stecker, supra; Young v. Young, 18 F.2d 807 (D.C.Cir.1927); McGehee v. Insurance Co. of North America, 112 F. 853 (5th Cir.1902). 1982Sacks v. Stecker, supra ; Young v. Young, 18 F.2d 807 (D.C. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
cluster 396567
green
1 sentence1982Charles v. Wade, supra; Briscoe v. LaHue, supra. The cases cited usually involved verbal testimony, but the immunity or privilege attaches to affidavits, as well as pleadings. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Earl Charles v. F. W. Wade, Leo B. Ryan and City of Savannah, Georgia
green
1 sentence1982Charles v. Wade, supra; Briscoe v. LaHue, supra. The cases cited usually involved verbal testimony, but the immunity or privilege attaches to affidavits, as well as pleadings. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Young v. Young
green
2 sentences1982Sacks v. Stecker, supra; Young v. Young, 18 F.2d 807 (D.C.Cir.1927); McGehee v. Insurance Co. of North America, 112 F. 853 (5th Cir.1902). 1982Sacks v. Stecker, supra ; Young v. Young, 18 F.2d 807 (D.C. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
McDonald v. Massachusetts General Hospital
green
1 sentence1966A study of this history indicates the first American decision to follow the immunity doctrine was McDonald v. Massachusetts General Hospital, 120 Mass. 432 , 21 Am.Rep. 529 (1876). | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.