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 1986–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Steed v. Grand Teton Council of the Boy Scouts of America, Inc.green2 sentences2016The statute creating the cause of action defines the conduct constituting the tort and the applicable standard of care.” Steed v. Grand Teton Council of the Boy Scouts of America, Inc., 144 Idaho 848, 853 , 172 P.3d 1123, 1128 (2007). 2016The statute creating the cause of action defines the conduct constituting the tort and the applicable standard of care.” Steed v. Grand Teton Council of the Boy Scouts of America, Inc., 144 Idaho 848, 853 , 172 P.3d 1123, 1128 (2007). | 2 | 2 |
Rees v. STATE, DEPT. OF HEALTH AND WELFAREgreen2 sentences2026In these cases, this Court will recognize a statutory duty on the part of the government entity only when the statute “require[s] a particular action by the agency to benefit a particular class of people.” GSN Cap., LLC, 173 Idaho at 352, 541 P.3d at 710 (quoting Rees v. Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 143 Idaho 10, 16 , 137 P.3d 397, 403 (2006)). 2026In these cases, this Court will recognize a statutory duty on the part of the government entity only when the statute “require[s] a particular action by the agency to benefit a particular class of people.” GSN Cap., LLC, 173 Idaho at 352, 541 P.3d at 710 (quoting Rees v. Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 143 Idaho 10, 16 , 137 P.3d 397, 403 (2006)). | 1 | 1 |
O'GUIN v. Bingham Countygreen2 sentences2005See O’Guin v. Bingham County, 139 Idaho 9 , 72 P.3d 849 (2003). 2005See O’Guin v. Bingham County, 139 Idaho 9 , 72 P.3d 849 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
Kinney v. Smithgreen2 sentences1989See Kinney v. Smith, 95 Idaho 328 , 508 P.2d 1234 (1973). 1989See Kinney v. Smith, 95 Idaho 328 , 508 P.2d 1234 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Emersongreen2 sentences1986See Johnson v. Emerson, 103 Idaho 350, 352 , 647 P.2d 806, 808 (Ct.App.1982). 1986See Johnson v. Emerson, 103 Idaho 350, 352 , 647 P.2d 806, 808 (Ct.App.1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stott by and Through Dougall v. Finney
green
2 sentences2007That statute provides that the "owners or constructors of ditches, canals, works or other aqueducts . . . must carefully keep and maintain the same . . . in good repair and condition, so as not to damage or in any way injure the property or premises of others." In upholding the district court, we held, "I.C. § 42-1204 does not create a negligence per se action, but only codifies that ditch owners and constructors can be held liable for damages occurring to others as a result of negligence." 130 Idaho at 896 , 950 P.2d at 711 . 2007That statute provides that the "owners or constructors of ditches, canals, works or other aqueducts . . . must carefully keep and maintain the same . . . in good repair and condition, so as not to damage or in any way injure the property or premises of others." In upholding the district court, we held, "I.C. § 42-1204 does not create a negligence per se action, but only codifies that ditch owners and constructors can be held liable for damages occurring to others as a result of negligence." 130 Idaho at 896 , 950 P.2d at 711 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Esterbrook v. State
green
2 sentences1994However, as we stated in Esterbrook , "the Court [in Curtis ] was considering mandatory provisions of the MUTCD ... [and] we did not intend to imply that all provisions in the MUTCD were mandatory." Esterbrook, 124 Idaho at 682 , 863 P.2d at 351 . 1994However, as we stated in Esterbrook , "the Court [in Curtis ] was considering mandatory provisions of the MUTCD ... [and] we did not intend to imply that all provisions in the MUTCD were mandatory." Esterbrook, 124 Idaho at 682 , 863 P.2d at 351 . | 2 | 1994–1994 |
GSN Capital, LLC v. Shoshone City & Rural Fire District
green
1 sentence2026In these cases, this Court will recognize a statutory duty on the part of the government entity only when the statute “require[s] a particular action by the agency to benefit a particular class of people.” GSN Cap., LLC, 173 Idaho at 352, 541 P.3d at 710 (quoting Rees v. Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 143 Idaho 10, 16 , 137 P.3d 397, 403 (2006)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Garcia v. Windley
green
1 sentence2010Id. at 542 , 164 P.3d at 822 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Young
green
1 sentence2007With respect to the claim based upon Idaho Code § 6-1701 (4) in this case, each of the Steeds must prove that while he was in the care or custody of Grand Teton Council, it willfully caused or permitted his person or health to be injured or willfully placed him in a such a situation that his person or health was endangered. ‘Willfully” in this context requires actual knowledge. 3 State v. Young, 188 Idaho 370 , 64 P.3d 296 (2002). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Sanchez v. Galey
green
2 sentences1989Previously, in the case of Sanchez v. Galey, 112 Idaho 609 , 733 P.2d 1234 (1987), this Court held that violation of an OSHA regulation can provide the basis for a negligence per se instruction where the claimant is an employee of the defendant. 1989Previously, in the case of Sanchez v. Galey, 112 Idaho 609 , 733 P.2d 1234 (1987), this Court held that violation of an OSHA regulation can provide the basis for a negligence per se instruction where the claimant is an employee of the defendant. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Brixey v. Craig
green
2 sentences1989However, in order to justify a negligence per se instruction under Idaho law, the defendant must violate a “positive statutory prohibition.” This requirement was mandated by the seminal cáse of Brixey v. Craig, 49 Idaho 319 , 288 P. 152 (1930), and has neither been overruled nor relaxed, though subsequent cases have imposed additional criteria. 1989However, in order to justify a negligence per se instruction under Idaho law, the defendant must violate a “positive statutory prohibition.” This requirement was mandated by the seminal cáse of Brixey v. Craig, 49 Idaho 319 , 288 P. 152 (1930), and has neither been overruled nor relaxed, though subsequent cases have imposed additional criteria. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Walton v. Potlatch Corp.
green
2 sentences1989Arrington, for the reasons set out in my dissenting opinion in Walton v. Potlatch Corp., 116 Idaho 892 , 781 P.2d 229 (1989). 1989Arrington, for the reasons set out in my dissenting opinion in Walton v. Potlatch Corp., 116 Idaho 892 , 781 P.2d 229 (1989). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
cluster 326790
green
2 sentences1989Thus, under the teachings of Brennan, supra, and Beatty, it was proper for the trial court to submit the negligence per se instruction (No. 9) to the jury. 1989Thus, under the teachings of Brennan, supra, and Beatty, it was proper for the trial court to submit the negligence per se instruction (No. 9) to the jury. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Wendland v. Ridgefield Construction Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences1987Because the standard of care is the key factor in determining liability, we conclude that the application of a negligence per se instruction affects common , law rights, duties and liabilities of employers and employees with respect to injuries of employees arising out of an in the course of employment as those terms are used in 29 U.S.C. § 653 (b)(4)....” (Wendland, 184 Conn. at 173 , 439 A.2d at 956-57 ). 1987Because the standard of care is the key factor in determining liability, we conclude that the application of a negligence per se instruction affects common , law rights, duties and liabilities of employers and employees with respect to injuries of employees arising out of an in the course of employment as those terms are used in 29 U.S.C. § 653 (b)(4)....” (Wendland, 184 Conn. at 173 , 439 A.2d at 956-57 ). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.