13 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1976–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dennis L. Akers v. Marti Mortensengreen2 sentences2019See Akers v. Mortensen , 160 Idaho 286 , 288, 371 P.3d 340 , 342 (2016) ("a party waives an appellate issue that is not supported with relevant argument or authority."). 2019See Akers v. Mortensen , 160 Idaho 286 , 288, 371 P.3d 340 , 342 (2016) ("a party waives an appellate issue that is not supported with relevant argument or authority."). | 2 | 2 |
Boundary Backpackers v. Boundary Countygreen2 sentences2000We have previously stated that when "the unconstitutional portion of a statute is not integral or indispensable, [we] will recognize and give effect to a severability clause." Simpson, 130 Idaho at 614 , 944 P.2d at 1377 ; see also Boundary Backpackers, 128 Idaho at 378 , 913 P.2d at 1148 . 2000We have previously stated that when "the unconstitutional portion of a statute is not integral or indispensable, [we] will recognize and give effect to a severability clause." Simpson, 130 Idaho at 614 , 944 P.2d at 1377 ; see also Boundary Backpackers, 128 Idaho at 378 , 913 P.2d at 1148 . | 2 | 2 |
In Re Srba Case No. 39576green2 sentences2007See, e.g., In re SRBA No. 39576, 128 Idaho 246, 264 , 912 P.2d 614, 632 (1995) (“When determining whether the remaining provisions in a statute can be severed from the unconstitutional sections, this Court will, when possible, recognize and give effect to the intent of the Legislature as expressed through a severability clause in the statute.”). 2007See, e.g., In re SRBA No. 39576, 128 Idaho 246, 264 , 912 P.2d 614, 632 (1995) (“When determining whether the remaining provisions in a statute can be severed from the unconstitutional sections, this Court will, when possible, recognize and give effect to the intent of the Legislature as expressed through a severability clause in the statute.”). | 1 | 2 |
Moffat Tunnel Improvement Dist. v. Denver & S. L. Ry. Co.green1 sentence2024Co., 45 F.2d 715, 731 (10th Cir. 1930) (A severability clause “is but an aid to construction, and will not justify a court in declaring a clause as divisible when, considering the entire contract, it obviously is not.”); John R. | 1 | 1 |
Mad River Boat Trips, Inc. v. Jackson Hole Whitewater, Inc.green1 sentence2024Fla. Jan. 6, 2022) (“The presence of a severability clause is evidence that the parties intended for the contract to be severable.”); Mad River Boat Trips, Inc. v. Jackson Hole Whitewater, Inc., 803 P.2d 366, 369 (Wyo. 1990) (“A severability clause cannot operate to effectuate a result which is contrary to the 13 intent of the parties.”); Southland Nat’l Ins. | 1 | 1 |
John R. Ray & Sons, Inc. v. Stromangreen2 sentences2024Ray & Sons, Inc. v. Stroman, 923 S.W.2d 80, 87 (1996) (“[W]hen the severed portion is integral to the entire contract, a severability clause, standing alone, cannot save the contract.”); Figueredo-Chavez v. RCI Hosp. 2024Ray & Sons, Inc. v. Stroman, 923 S.W.2d 80, 87 (1996) (“[W]hen the severed portion is integral to the entire contract, a severability clause, standing alone, cannot save the contract.”); Figueredo-Chavez v. RCI Hosp. | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Baby Boy Doegreen1 sentence1998Although the opinion stated: [b]ecause I.C. § 66-337(d) is unconstitutional under the principles enumerated in Foucha , Nielsen’s future confinement, in the absence of legislative response, will be governed by the terms for release contained in I.C. § 66-337(b), (127 Idaho at 452, 902 P.2d at 477 ) we did not intend to invalidate portions of I.C. § 66-337(d) that are not violative of the federal *498 constitution. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lynn v. Kootenai County Fire Protective District 1
green
2 sentences1995Lynn, 97 Idaho at 627 , 550 P.2d at 130 . 1995Lynn, 97 Idaho at 627 , 550 P.2d at 130 . | 2 | 1995–1995 |
Van Orden v. Van Orden
green
1 sentence2024“A marital settlement agreement is a contract.” Van Orden v. Van Orden, 170 Idaho 597 , 606–07, 515 P.3d 233 , 242–43 (2022) (citing I.C. § 32-917). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Farrell v. Whiteman
green
2 sentences2013Our holding in Farrell v. Whiteman, 146 Idaho 604 , 200 P.3d 1153 (2009), wherein we found an architectural agreement illegal, would not apply to these facts. 2013Our holding in Farrell v. Whiteman, 146 Idaho 604 , 200 P.3d 1153 (2009), wherein we found an architectural agreement illegal, would not apply to these facts. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Simpson v. Cenarrusa
green
2 sentences2000We have previously stated that when "the unconstitutional portion of a statute is not integral or indispensable, [we] will recognize and give effect to a severability clause." Simpson, 130 Idaho at 614 , 944 P.2d at 1377 ; see also Boundary Backpackers, 128 Idaho at 378 , 913 P.2d at 1148 . 2000We have previously stated that when "the unconstitutional portion of a statute is not integral or indispensable, [we] will recognize and give effect to a severability clause." Simpson, 130 Idaho at 614 , 944 P.2d at 1377 ; see also Boundary Backpackers, 128 Idaho at 378 , 913 P.2d at 1148 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Application of Nielsen
green
1 sentence1998Although the opinion stated: [b]ecause I.C. § 66-337(d) is unconstitutional under the principles enumerated in Foucha , Nielsen’s future confinement, in the absence of legislative response, will be governed by the terms for release contained in I.C. § 66-337(b), (127 Idaho at 452, 902 P.2d at 477 ) we did not intend to invalidate portions of I.C. § 66-337(d) that are not violative of the federal *498 constitution. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
County of Clark v. City of Las Vegas
green
2 sentences1985Barndollar v. Sunset Realty Corp., 379 So.2d 1278 (Fla.1979); County of Clark v. City of Las Vegas, [ 92 Nev. 323 ] 550 P.2d 779 (Nev.1976). 1985Barndollar v. Sunset Realty Corp., 379 So.2d 1278 (Fla.1979); County of Clark v. City of Las Vegas, [ 92 Nev. 323 ] 550 P.2d 779 (Nev.1976). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Barndollar v. Sunset Realty Corp.
green
2 sentences1985Barndollar v. Sunset Realty Corp., 379 So.2d 1278 (Fla.1979); County of Clark v. City of Las Vegas, [ 92 Nev. 323 ] 550 P.2d 779 (Nev.1976). 1985Barndollar v. Sunset Realty Corp., 379 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 1979); County of Clark v. City of Las Vegas, [ 92 Nev. 323 ] 550 P.2d 779 (Nev. 1976). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Clemens v. Pinehurst Water District
green
2 sentences1976Clemens v. Pinehurst Water Dist., 81 Idaho 213 , 339 P.2d 665 (1959). 1976Clemens v. Pinehurst Water Dist., 81 Idaho 213 , 339 P.2d 665 (1959). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.