11 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jordan v. Huntergreen2 sentences2020See Jordan, 124 Idaho at 907 , 865 P.2d at 998 ; see also Bolt v. Influence, Inc., 43 P.3d 425 , 427–29 (Or. 2002) (holding that the trial court erred using a clear and convincing evidentiary standard to review the sufficiency of the evidence). 2020See Jordan, 124 Idaho at 907 , 865 P.2d at 998 ; see also Bolt v. Influence, Inc., 43 P.3d 425 , 427–29 (Or. 2002) (holding that the trial court erred using a clear and convincing evidentiary standard to review the sufficiency of the evidence). | 1 | 1 |
Bolt v. Influence, Inc.green1 sentence2020See Jordan, 124 Idaho at 907 , 865 P.2d at 998 ; see also Bolt v. Influence, Inc., 43 P.3d 425 , 427–29 (Or. 2002) (holding that the trial court erred using a clear and convincing evidentiary standard to review the sufficiency of the evidence). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Adoption of Doegreen1 sentence2020The clear and convincing evidence standard is met when there is “evidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain.” Id. (quoting In re 4 Adoption of Doe, 143 Idaho 188, 191 , 141 P.3d 1057, 1060 (2006) (internal brackets omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Spencer-Steed v. Spencergreen2 sentences1998See also Spencer-Steed v. Spencer, 115 Idaho 338 , 766 P.2d 1219 (1988) (applying the clear and convincing evidence test); Sullivan v. Sullivan, 102 Idaho 737, 743 , 639 P.2d 435, 441 (1981) (Shepard, J., concurring) (acknowledging the presumption outlined in Phillips); Phillips v. Dist. 1998See also Spencer-Steed v. Spencer, 115 Idaho 338 , 766 P.2d 1219 (1988) (applying the clear and convincing evidence test); Sullivan v. Sullivan, 102 Idaho 737, 743 , 639 P.2d 435, 441 (1981) (Shepard, J., concurring) (acknowledging the presumption outlined in Phillips); Phillips v. Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Sullivan v. Sullivangreen2 sentences1998See also Spencer-Steed v. Spencer, 115 Idaho 338 , 766 P.2d 1219 (1988) (applying the clear and convincing evidence test); Sullivan v. Sullivan, 102 Idaho 737, 743 , 639 P.2d 435, 441 (1981) (Shepard, J., concurring) (acknowledging the presumption outlined in Phillips); Phillips v. Dist. 1998See also Spencer-Steed v. Spencer, 115 Idaho 338 , 766 P.2d 1219 (1988) (applying the clear and convincing evidence test); Sullivan v. Sullivan, 102 Idaho 737, 743 , 639 P.2d 435, 441 (1981) (Shepard, J., concurring) (acknowledging the presumption outlined in Phillips); Phillips v. Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Idaho State Bargreen2 sentences1994Williams v. Idaho State Bar, 123 Idaho 367, 369 , 848 P.2d 425, 427 (1993) (citations omitted) (footnote omitted). 1994Williams v. Idaho State Bar, 123 Idaho 367, 369 , 848 P.2d 425, 427 (1993) (citations omitted) (footnote omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Lynch v. Cheneygreen2 sentences1987This Court's decision in Lynch v. Cheney, 98 Idaho 238, 243 , 561 P.2d 380, 385 (1977), summarized the requirement as follows: *1308 "While this Court has not previously addressed the question of what standard of proof is necessary to prove a claim of oral compromise of a judgment, we have required a clear and convincing, or a clear and satisfactory standard of proof in analogous circumstances such as the oral modification of a written contract, Prairie Development Co., Ltd. v. Leiberg, 15 Idaho 379 , 98 P. 616 (1909) (`clear and satisfactory'), and an oral claim of ownership of real property 1987This Court's decision in Lynch v. Cheney, 98 Idaho 238, 243 , 561 P.2d 380, 385 (1977), summarized the requirement as follows: *1308 "While this Court has not previously addressed the question of what standard of proof is necessary to prove a claim of oral compromise of a judgment, we have required a clear and convincing, or a clear and satisfactory standard of proof in analogous circumstances such as the oral modification of a written contract, Prairie Development Co., Ltd. v. Leiberg, 15 Idaho 379 , 98 P. 616 (1909) (`clear and satisfactory'), and an oral claim of ownership of real property | 1 | 1 |
Fredricksen v. Fullmergreen2 sentences1975See also Fredricksen v. Fullmer, 74 Idaho 164 , 258 P.2d 1155 (1953), where this Court set aside the plaintiff’s claim, which the district court had granted, even though the opinion does not record any evidence introduced adverse to the claim, on the ground that the plaintiff had not met its burden of showing its case by clear and convincing evidence. *527 Accordingly, we cannot say as a matter of law that the magistrate was incorrect in concluding that the burden of the clear and convincing evidence test had not been met. 1975See also Fredricksen v. Fullmer, 74 Idaho 164 , 258 P.2d 1155 (1953), where this Court set aside the plaintiff’s claim, which the district court had granted, even though the opinion does not record any evidence introduced adverse to the claim, on the ground that the plaintiff had not met its burden of showing its case by clear and convincing evidence. *527 Accordingly, we cannot say as a matter of law that the magistrate was incorrect in concluding that the burden of the clear and convincing evidence test had not been met. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
American Falls Reservoir District No. 2 v. Idaho Department of Water Resources
green
2 sentences2024Given the rights at play, and the precedent that a senior water rights holder is not required “to re-prove an adjudicated right,” AFRD#2, 143 Idaho at 878 , 154 P.3d at 449 , we hold that the clear and convincing evidence standard applies to the junior right holder’s burden, whether in cases under the CM Rules or in cases brought by the Director under section 42-237a.g. 2024Given the rights at play, and the precedent that a senior water rights holder is not required “to re-prove an adjudicated right,” AFRD#2, 143 Idaho at 878 , 154 P.3d at 449 , we hold that the clear and convincing evidence standard applies to the junior right holder’s burden, whether in cases under the CM Rules or in cases brought by the Director under section 42-237a.g. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Department of Health and Welfare v. Doe
green
1 sentence2020The clear and convincing evidence standard is met when there is “evidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain.” Id. (quoting In re 4 Adoption of Doe, 143 Idaho 188, 191 , 141 P.3d 1057, 1060 (2006) (internal brackets omitted)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Roe v. Doe
green
1 sentence2020The clear and convincing evidence standard is met when there is “evidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain.” Id. (quoting In re 4 Adoption of Doe, 143 Idaho 188, 191 , 141 P.3d 1057, 1060 (2006) (internal brackets omitted)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Robison v. Bateman-Hall, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020Although the Nelsons will have to overcome the clear and convincing evidence standard applicable to this case, the well-established standard on summary judgment still applies: the trial court must “liberally construe[] the record in favor of the party opposing the motion for summary judgment and draw[] any reasonable inferences and conclusions in that party’s favor.” Robison, 139 Idaho at 209 , 76 P.3d at 953 . 2020Although the Nelsons will have to overcome the clear and convincing evidence standard applicable to this case, the well-established standard on summary judgment still applies: the trial court must “liberally construe[] the record in favor of the party opposing the motion for summary judgment and draw[] any reasonable inferences and conclusions in that party’s favor.” Robison, 139 Idaho at 209 , 76 P.3d at 953 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Kimbrough v. Idaho Board of Tax Appeals
green
2 sentences2013Burden of proof Wurzburg argues the district court erred in determining the burden of proof applicable in this case by applying the clear and convincing evidence standard set forth in Kimbrough, 150 Idaho at 421-22 , 247 P.3d at 648-49 . 2013Burden of proof Wurzburg argues the district court erred in determining the burden of proof applicable in this case by applying the clear and convincing evidence standard set forth in Kimbrough, 150 Idaho at 421-22 , 247 P.3d at 648-49 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Phillips v. District Court of Fifth Judicial District
green
2 sentences1998Court of Fifth Judicial Dist., 95 Idaho 404 , 509 P.2d 1325 (1973) (same). 1998Court of Fifth Judicial Dist., 95 Idaho 404 , 509 P.2d 1325 (1973) (same). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Matter of Jenkins
green
2 sentences1993However, instead of the clear and convincing evidence standard “historically required in attorney disbarment and disciplinary actions,” In re Matter of Jenkins, 120 Idaho at 384 , 816 P.2d at 340 , we apply a preponderance of the evidence standard in Clients’ Security Fund actions in accordance with the applicable rule, I.B.C.R. 613(e). 3 C. 1993However, instead of the clear and convincing evidence standard “historically required in attorney disbarment and disciplinary actions,” In re Matter of Jenkins, 120 Idaho at 384 , 816 P.2d at 340 , we apply a preponderance of the evidence standard in Clients’ Security Fund actions in accordance with the applicable rule, I.B.C.R. 613(e). 3 C. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Faw v. Greenwood
green
2 sentences1991Tusch Enters. v. Coffin, 113 Idaho 37 , 740 P.2d 1022 (1987); Faw v. Greenwood, 101 Idaho 387 , 613 P.2d 1338 (1980); Smith v. King, 100 Idaho 331 , 597 P.2d 217 (1979); Gneiting *864 v. Clement, 96 Idaho 348 , 528 P.2d 1283 (1974). 1991Tusch Enters. v. Coffin, 113 Idaho 37 , 740 P.2d 1022 (1987); Faw v. Greenwood, 101 Idaho 387 , 613 P.2d 1338 (1980); Smith v. King, 100 Idaho 331 , 597 P.2d 217 (1979); Gneiting *864 v. Clement, 96 Idaho 348 , 528 P.2d 1283 (1974). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Gneiting v. Clement
green
2 sentences1991Tusch Enters. v. Coffin, 113 Idaho 37 , 740 P.2d 1022 (1987); Faw v. Greenwood, 101 Idaho 387 , 613 P.2d 1338 (1980); Smith v. King, 100 Idaho 331 , 597 P.2d 217 (1979); Gneiting *864 v. Clement, 96 Idaho 348 , 528 P.2d 1283 (1974). 1991Tusch Enters. v. Coffin, 113 Idaho 37 , 740 P.2d 1022 (1987); Faw v. Greenwood, 101 Idaho 387 , 613 P.2d 1338 (1980); Smith v. King, 100 Idaho 331 , 597 P.2d 217 (1979); Gneiting *864 v. Clement, 96 Idaho 348 , 528 P.2d 1283 (1974). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Smith v. King
green
2 sentences1991Tusch Enters. v. Coffin, 113 Idaho 37 , 740 P.2d 1022 (1987); Faw v. Greenwood, 101 Idaho 387 , 613 P.2d 1338 (1980); Smith v. King, 100 Idaho 331 , 597 P.2d 217 (1979); Gneiting *864 v. Clement, 96 Idaho 348 , 528 P.2d 1283 (1974). 1991Tusch Enters. v. Coffin, 113 Idaho 37 , 740 P.2d 1022 (1987); Faw v. Greenwood, 101 Idaho 387 , 613 P.2d 1338 (1980); Smith v. King, 100 Idaho 331 , 597 P.2d 217 (1979); Gneiting *864 v. Clement, 96 Idaho 348 , 528 P.2d 1283 (1974). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Tusch Enterprises v. Coffin
green
2 sentences1991Tusch Enters. v. Coffin, 113 Idaho 37 , 740 P.2d 1022 (1987); Faw v. Greenwood, 101 Idaho 387 , 613 P.2d 1338 (1980); Smith v. King, 100 Idaho 331 , 597 P.2d 217 (1979); Gneiting *864 v. Clement, 96 Idaho 348 , 528 P.2d 1283 (1974). 1991Tusch Enters. v. Coffin, 113 Idaho 37 , 740 P.2d 1022 (1987); Faw v. Greenwood, 101 Idaho 387 , 613 P.2d 1338 (1980); Smith v. King, 100 Idaho 331 , 597 P.2d 217 (1979); Gneiting *864 v. Clement, 96 Idaho 348 , 528 P.2d 1283 (1974). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Russ Ballard & Family Achievement Institute v. Lava Hot Springs Resort, Inc.
green
2 sentences1987This Court's decision in Lynch v. Cheney, 98 Idaho 238, 243 , 561 P.2d 380, 385 (1977), summarized the requirement as follows: *1308 "While this Court has not previously addressed the question of what standard of proof is necessary to prove a claim of oral compromise of a judgment, we have required a clear and convincing, or a clear and satisfactory standard of proof in analogous circumstances such as the oral modification of a written contract, Prairie Development Co., Ltd. v. Leiberg, 15 Idaho 379 , 98 P. 616 (1909) (`clear and satisfactory'), and an oral claim of ownership of real property 1987This Court's decision in Lynch v. Cheney, 98 Idaho 238, 243 , 561 P.2d 380, 385 (1977), summarized the requirement as follows: *1308 "While this Court has not previously addressed the question of what standard of proof is necessary to prove a claim of oral compromise of a judgment, we have required a clear and convincing, or a clear and satisfactory standard of proof in analogous circumstances such as the oral modification of a written contract, Prairie Development Co., Ltd. v. Leiberg, 15 Idaho 379 , 98 P. 616 (1909) (`clear and satisfactory'), and an oral claim of ownership of real property | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Prairie Development Co. v. Leiberg
green
2 sentences1987This Court's decision in Lynch v. Cheney, 98 Idaho 238, 243 , 561 P.2d 380, 385 (1977), summarized the requirement as follows: *1308 "While this Court has not previously addressed the question of what standard of proof is necessary to prove a claim of oral compromise of a judgment, we have required a clear and convincing, or a clear and satisfactory standard of proof in analogous circumstances such as the oral modification of a written contract, Prairie Development Co., Ltd. v. Leiberg, 15 Idaho 379 , 98 P. 616 (1909) (`clear and satisfactory'), and an oral claim of ownership of real property 1987This Court's decision in Lynch v. Cheney, 98 Idaho 238, 243 , 561 P.2d 380, 385 (1977), summarized the requirement as follows: *1308 "While this Court has not previously addressed the question of what standard of proof is necessary to prove a claim of oral compromise of a judgment, we have required a clear and convincing, or a clear and satisfactory standard of proof in analogous circumstances such as the oral modification of a written contract, Prairie Development Co., Ltd. v. Leiberg, 15 Idaho 379 , 98 P. 616 (1909) (`clear and satisfactory'), and an oral claim of ownership of real property | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.