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.
12 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. McGoldrickgreen2 sentences2012Bank, N.A v. McGoldrick, 148 Idaho 56, 60 , 218 P.3d 785, 789 (2008). 2012Bank, N.A v. McGoldrick, 148 Idaho 56, 60 , 218 P.3d 785, 789 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Lee v. Nickersongreen2 sentences2011“To determine whether there is an abuse of discretion this Court considers whether (1) the court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) the court acted within the boundaries of such discretion and consistently with legal standards applicable to specific choices; and (3) the court reached its decision by an exercise of reason.” Id. at 639-40 , 227 P.3d at 569 -70 (quoting Lee v. Nickerson, 146 Idaho 5, 9 , 189 P.3d 467, 471 (2008)) (internal citations omitted). 2011“To determine whether there is an abuse of discretion this Court considers whether (1) the court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) the court acted within the boundaries of such discretion and consistently with legal standards applicable to specific choices; and (3) the court reached its decision by an exercise of reason.” Id. at 639-40 , 227 P.3d at 569 -70 (quoting Lee v. Nickerson, 146 Idaho 5, 9 , 189 P.3d 467, 471 (2008)) (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Demain v. Bruce McLaughlin Logginggreen2 sentences2000Id. at 782-83, 979 P.2d at 655-56 . 2000Id. at 782-83, 979 P.2d at 655-56 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kelly v. State
green
2 sentences2024Kelly, 149 Idaho at 522 , 236 P.3d at 1282 . 2024Kelly, 149 Idaho at 522 , 236 P.3d at 1282 . | 4 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Wade Lamonte Peterson
green
2 sentences2013In State v. Peterson, 153 Idaho 157 , 280 P.3d 184 (Ct. App. 2012), this Court addressed a claim that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain a motion filed more than ten months after the entry of dismissal. 2013In State v. Peterson, 153 Idaho 157 , 280 P.3d 184 (Ct. App. 2012), this Court addressed a claim that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain a motion filed more than ten months after the entry of dismissal. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Bennett v. State, Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2013This Court addressed the requirement of the fifteen-minute monitoring period in Bennett v. State, Dep’t of Transp., 147 Idaho 141 , 206 P.3d 505 (Ct.App.2009). 2013This Court addressed the requirement of the fifteen-minute monitoring period in Bennett v. State, Dep’t of Transp., 147 Idaho 141 , 206 P.3d 505 (Ct.App.2009). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Henderson v. Henderson Investment Properties, L.L.C.
green
2 sentences2011This Court addressed the standard of review governing a district court’s award of attorney fees in Henderson v. Henderson Investment Properties, L.L.C., 148 Idaho 638 , 227 P.3d 568 (2010): When reviewing a trial court’s award of attorney fees, this court applies an abuse of discretion standard. 2011This Court addressed the standard of review governing a district court’s award of attorney fees in Henderson v. Henderson Investment Properties, L.L.C., 148 Idaho 638 , 227 P.3d 568 (2010): When reviewing a trial court’s award of attorney fees, this court applies an abuse of discretion standard. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Allen v. Kitchen
green
2 sentences2004In Allen v. Kitchen, 16 Idaho 133 , 100 P. 1052 (1909), this Court held invalid a real estate contract that described the property being sold as “Lots 11, 12, and 13, in block 13, Lemp’s addition” and “Lot 27, Syringa Park addition, consisting of 5 acres.” As this Court noted, “The contract nowhere shows or discloses the city, town, county, or state in which it was executed; nor does it show the city, county, state, or other civil or political division or district in which any of the property is situated.” 16 Idaho at 137 , 100 P. at 1053 . 2004In Allen v. Kitchen, 16 Idaho 133 , 100 P. 1052 (1909), this Court held invalid a real estate contract that described the property being sold as “Lots 11, 12, and 13, in block 13, Lemp’s addition” and “Lot 27, Syringa Park addition, consisting of 5 acres.” As this Court noted, “The contract nowhere shows or discloses the city, town, county, or state in which it was executed; nor does it show the city, county, state, or other civil or political division or district in which any of the property is situated.” 16 Idaho at 137 , 100 P. at 1053 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
United States v. Terry Burton Kimbrough
green
2 sentences1999Finally, in United States v. Kimbrough, 69 F.3d 723 (5th Cir.1995), the Court addressed a challenge to a search warrant authorizing seizure of computer hardware and software used to “depict a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” The Kimbrough Court distinguished cases involving obscenity from those involving sexually explicit conduct and held that, unlike the determination of which presumptively protected materials are obscene, the identification “of visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct ... is a factual determination that leaves little latitude to the offi 1999Finally, in United States v. Kimbrough, 69 F.3d 723 (5th Cir.1995), the Court addressed a challenge to a search warrant authorizing seizure of computer hardware and software used to “depict a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” The Kimbrough Court distinguished cases involving obscenity from those involving sexually explicit conduct and held that, unlike the determination of which presumptively protected materials are obscene, the identification “of visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct ... is a factual determination that leaves little latitude to the offi | 1 | 1999–1999 |
United States v. Gengler
green
1 sentence1986Lujan v. Gengler, 510 F.2d 62 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1001 , 95 S.Ct. 2400 , 44 L.Ed.2d 668 , the court addressed a claim by Julio Lujan that he had been seized and transported from Bolivia to New York on a narcotics charge, without benefit of formal arrest or extradition process. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Richardson v. United States
green
1 sentence1986Lujan v. Gengler, 510 F.2d 62 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1001 , 95 S.Ct. 2400 , 44 L.Ed.2d 668 , the court addressed a claim by Julio Lujan that he had been seized and transported from Bolivia to New York on a narcotics charge, without benefit of formal arrest or extradition process. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Ried v. United States
green
1 sentence1986Lujan v. Gengler, 510 F.2d 62 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1001 , 95 S.Ct. 2400 , 44 L.Ed.2d 668 , the court addressed a claim by Julio Lujan that he had been seized and transported from Bolivia to New York on a narcotics charge, without benefit of formal arrest or extradition process. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.