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 1983–2023 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Associates Northwest, Inc. v. Beetsgreen2 sentences2003Id. at 600, 768 P.2d at 1333 (quoting Associates Northwest, Inc. v. Beets, 112 Idaho 603, 605 , 733 P.2d 824, 826 (Ct.App.1987)). 2003Id. at 600, 768 P.2d at 1333 (quoting Associates Northwest, Inc. v. Beets, 112 Idaho 603, 605 , 733 P.2d 824, 826 (Ct.App.1987)). | 3 | 4 |
Bream v. Benscotergreen2 sentences2016This Court set out the standard of review when determining the prevailing party in Bream v. Benscoter, 139 Idaho 364, 368 , 79 P.3d 723, 727 (2003): The determination of who is a prevailing party is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and we. will not disturb that determination absent an abuse of discretion. 2016This Court set out the standard of review when determining the prevailing party in Bream v. Benscoter, 139 Idaho 364, 368 , 79 P.3d 723, 727 (2003): The determination of who is a prevailing party is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and we. will not disturb that determination absent an abuse of discretion. | 2 | 2 |
CASTRINGO v. McQuadegreen2 sentences2022Quoting our decision in Castringo v. McQuade, 141 Idaho 93, 98 , 106 P.3d 419, 424 (2005), Rangen explained that fees are appropriate when the nonprevailing party “continued to rely on the same arguments used in front of the district court, without providing any additional persuasive law or bringing into doubt the existing law on which the district court based its decision.” 159 Idaho at 812 , 367 P.3d at 207 . 2022Quoting our decision in Castringo v. McQuade, 141 Idaho 93, 98 , 106 P.3d 419, 424 (2005), Rangen explained that fees are appropriate when the nonprevailing party “continued to rely on the same arguments used in front of the district court, without providing any additional persuasive law or bringing into doubt the existing law on which the district court based its decision.” 159 Idaho at 812 , 367 P.3d at 207 . | 1 | 1 |
Willig v. State, Department of Health & Welfaregreen2 sentences2001Willig v. State Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 127 Idaho 259, 261 , 899 P.2d 969, 971 (1995); Boise Group Homes, Inc. v. Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 123 Idaho 908, 909 , 854 P.2d 251, 252 (1993); Dovel v. Dobson, 122 Idaho 59, 61 , 831 P.2d 527, 529 (1992). 2001Willig v. State Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 127 Idaho 259, 261 , 899 P.2d 969, 971 (1995); Boise Group Homes, Inc. v. Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 123 Idaho 908, 909 , 854 P.2d 251, 252 (1993); Dovel v. Dobson, 122 Idaho 59, 61 , 831 P.2d 527, 529 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
Dovel v. Dobsongreen2 sentences2001Willig v. State Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 127 Idaho 259, 261 , 899 P.2d 969, 971 (1995); Boise Group Homes, Inc. v. Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 123 Idaho 908, 909 , 854 P.2d 251, 252 (1993); Dovel v. Dobson, 122 Idaho 59, 61 , 831 P.2d 527, 529 (1992). 2001Willig v. State Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 127 Idaho 259, 261 , 899 P.2d 969, 971 (1995); Boise Group Homes, Inc. v. Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 123 Idaho 908, 909 , 854 P.2d 251, 252 (1993); Dovel v. Dobson, 122 Idaho 59, 61 , 831 P.2d 527, 529 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
Boise Group Homes, Inc. v. Idaho Department of Health & Welfaregreen2 sentences2001Willig v. State Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 127 Idaho 259, 261 , 899 P.2d 969, 971 (1995); Boise Group Homes, Inc. v. Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 123 Idaho 908, 909 , 854 P.2d 251, 252 (1993); Dovel v. Dobson, 122 Idaho 59, 61 , 831 P.2d 527, 529 (1992). 2001Willig v. State Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 127 Idaho 259, 261 , 899 P.2d 969, 971 (1995); Boise Group Homes, Inc. v. Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 123 Idaho 908, 909 , 854 P.2d 251, 252 (1993); Dovel v. Dobson, 122 Idaho 59, 61 , 831 P.2d 527, 529 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Teague v. Lane
green
2 sentences2023We explicitly adopted the retroactivity test from Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), for criminal cases on collateral review. 2023We explicitly adopted the retroactivity test from Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), for criminal cases on collateral review. | 3 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Dameniel Preston Owens
green
2 sentences2023The Court set out the standard for determining retroactive versus prospective application of a new criminal procedural rule in State v. Owens, 158 Idaho 1 , 343 P.3d 30 (2015), a case that reversed longstanding precedent concerning the calculation of credit for time served under Idaho Code section 18-309: Finally, we must determine whether we will apply this decision retroactively. 2023The Court set out the standard for determining retroactive versus prospective application of a new criminal procedural rule in State v. Owens, 158 Idaho 1 , 343 P.3d 30 (2015), a case that reversed longstanding precedent concerning the calculation of credit for time served under Idaho Code section 18-309: Finally, we must determine whether we will apply this decision retroactively. | 3 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Hedger
green
2 sentences2003In State v. Hedger, 115 *530 Idaho 598, 768 P.2d 1331 (1989), this Court set out the test for evaluating whether a trial court has abused its discretion: (I) whether the lower court rightly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the court acted within the outer boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to specific choices; and (3) whether the court reached its decision by an exercise of reason. 2002In State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598 , 768 P.2d 1331 (1989), this Court set out the test for evaluating whether a trial court has abused its discretion: *136 (1) whether the lower court rightly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the court acted within the outer boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to specific choices; and (3) whether the court reached its decision by an exercise of reason. | 3 | 1997–2003 |
Bolger v. Lance
green
2 sentences2016Bolder v. Lance, 137 Idaho 792 , 53 P.3d 1211 (2002). 2016Bolder v. Lance, 137 Idaho 792 , 53 P.3d 1211 (2002). | 2 | 2015–2016 |
Rangen, Inc. v. Idaho Department of Water Resources
green
2 sentences2022In Rangen, this Court set out a standard for granting fees to the prevailing party under Idaho Code section 12-117(1). 159 Idaho at 812 , 367 P.3d at 207 . 2022In Rangen, this Court set out a standard for granting fees to the prevailing party under Idaho Code section 12-117(1). 159 Idaho at 812 , 367 P.3d at 207 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Sun Valley Shopping Center, Inc. v. Idaho Power Co.
green
2 sentences2002In Sun Valley Shopping Center v. Idaho Power Co., 119 Idaho 87 , 803 P.2d 993 (1991), this Court set out the test for evaluating whether a trial court has abused its discretion: (1) Whether the lower court rightly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the court acted within the outer boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to specific choices; and (3) whether the court reached its decision by an exercise of reason. 2002In Sun Valley Shopping Center v. Idaho Power Co., 119 Idaho 87 , 803 P.2d 993 (1991), this Court set out the test for evaluating whether a trial court has abused its discretion: (1) Whether the lower court rightly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the court acted within the outer boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to specific choices; and (3) whether the court reached its decision by an exercise of reason. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Robbins v. Department of Public Works
green
2 sentences1983In Sacco v. Department of Public Works, 352 Mass. 670 , 227 N.E.2d 478 (1967), and Robbins v. Department of Public Works, 355 Mass. 328 , 244 N.E.2d 577 (1969), the court set out the standard to be met to show adequate legislative intent, holding the legislature must identify the land and there must appear in the legislation not only a statement of the new use but a statement or recital demonstrating legislative awareness of the existing public use. 1983In Sacco v. Department of Public Works, 352 Mass. 670 , 227 N.E.2d 478 (1967), and Robbins v. Department of Public Works, 355 Mass. 328 , 244 N.E.2d 577 (1969), the court set out the standard to be met to show adequate legislative intent, holding the legislature must identify the land and there must appear in the legislation not only a statement of the new use but a statement or recital demonstrating legislative awareness of the existing public use. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. LePage
green
2 sentences1983Chapman v. California, supra. The court will look to see whether such error was “harmless.” In State v. LePage, 102 Idaho 387 , 630 P.2d 674 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1057 , 102 S.Ct. 606 , 70 L.Ed.2d 595 (1981), this court set out the test to be applied where inadmissible evidence was put before the jury. 1983Chapman v. California, supra. The court will look to see whether such error was “harmless.” In State v. LePage, 102 Idaho 387 , 630 P.2d 674 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1057 , 102 S.Ct. 606 , 70 L.Ed.2d 595 (1981), this court set out the test to be applied where inadmissible evidence was put before the jury. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Sacco v. Department of Public Works
green
2 sentences1983In Sacco v. Department of Public Works, 352 Mass. 670 , 227 N.E.2d 478 (1967), and Robbins v. Department of Public Works, 355 Mass. 328 , 244 N.E.2d 577 (1969), the court set out the standard to be met to show adequate legislative intent, holding the legislature must identify the land and there must appear in the legislation not only a statement of the new use but a statement or recital demonstrating legislative awareness of the existing public use. 1983In Sacco v. Department of Public Works, 352 Mass. 670 , 227 N.E.2d 478 (1967), and Robbins v. Department of Public Works, 355 Mass. 328 , 244 N.E.2d 577 (1969), the court set out the standard to be met to show adequate legislative intent, holding the legislature must identify the land and there must appear in the legislation not only a statement of the new use but a statement or recital demonstrating legislative awareness of the existing public use. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
LePage v. Idaho
green
2 sentences1983Chapman v. California, supra. The court will look to see whether such error was “harmless.” In State v. LePage, 102 Idaho 387 , 630 P.2d 674 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1057 , 102 S.Ct. 606 , 70 L.Ed.2d 595 (1981), this court set out the test to be applied where inadmissible evidence was put before the jury. 1983Chapman v. California, supra. The court will look to see whether such error was “harmless.” In State v. LePage, 102 Idaho 387 , 630 P.2d 674 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1057 , 102 S.Ct. 606 , 70 L.Ed.2d 595 (1981), this court set out the test to be applied where inadmissible evidence was put before the jury. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.