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.
11 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Andrews v. Idaho Forest Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2016“A trial court does not abuse its discretion if it (1) correctly perceives the issue as discretionary, (2) acts within the bounds of discretion and applies the correct legal standards, and (3) reaches the decision through an exercise of reason.” Capstar Radio Operating Co. v. Lawrence, 153 Idaho 411, 423 , 283 P.3d 728, 740 (2012) (quoting O’Connor v. Harger Constr., Inc., 145 Idaho 904, 909 , 188 P.3d 846, 851 (2008)). “[W]here issues of discretion are involved, an award of attorney fees is proper if the appellant fails to make a cogent challenge to the judge’s exercise of discretion.” Andrew 2016“A trial court does not abuse its discretion if it (1) correctly perceives the issue as discretionary, (2) acts within the bounds of discretion and applies the correct legal standards, and (3) reaches the decision through an exercise of reason.” Capstar Radio Operating Co. v. Lawrence, 153 Idaho 411, 423 , 283 P.3d 728, 740 (2012) (quoting O’Connor v. Harger Constr., Inc., 145 Idaho 904, 909 , 188 P.3d 846, 851 (2008)). “[W]here issues of discretion are involved, an award of attorney fees is proper if the appellant fails to make a cogent challenge to the judge’s exercise of discretion.” Andrew | 6 | 8 |
Utter v. Gibbinsgreen2 sentences2016Utter v. Gibbins, 137 Idaho 361, 365 , 48 P.3d 1250, 1254 (2002) (‘Where issues of discretion are involved, an award of attorney fees is proper if the appellant fails to make a cogent challenge to the judge’s exercise of discretion.” (quoting Andrews, 117 Idaho at 198 , 786 P.2d at 589 )). (2) Attorney Fees and Costs under the loan documents Here, the district court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion, and using its discretion, found that the loan documents allowed for the award of attorney fees. 2016Utter v. Gibbins, 137 Idaho 361, 365 , 48 P.3d 1250, 1254 (2002) (‘Where issues of discretion are involved, an award of attorney fees is proper if the appellant fails to make a cogent challenge to the judge’s exercise of discretion.” (quoting Andrews, 117 Idaho at 198 , 786 P.2d at 589 )). (2) Attorney Fees and Costs under the loan documents Here, the district court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion, and using its discretion, found that the loan documents allowed for the award of attorney fees. | 3 | 3 |
Capstar Radio Operating Co. v. Lawrencegreen2 sentences2016“A trial court does not abuse its discretion if it (1) correctly perceives the issue as discretionary, (2) acts within the bounds of discretion and applies the correct legal standards, and (3) reaches the decision through an exercise of reason.” Capstar Radio Operating Co. v. Lawrence, 153 Idaho 411, 423 , 283 P.3d 728, 740 (2012) (quoting O’Connor v. Harger Constr., Inc., 145 Idaho 904, 909 , 188 P.3d 846, 851 (2008)). “[W]here issues of discretion are involved, an award of attorney fees is proper if the appellant fails to make a cogent challenge to the judge’s exercise of discretion.” Andrew 2016“A trial court does not abuse its discretion if it (1) correctly perceives the issue as discretionary, (2) acts within the bounds of discretion and applies the correct legal standards, and (3) reaches the decision through an exercise of reason.” Capstar Radio Operating Co. v. Lawrence, 153 Idaho 411, 423 , 283 P.3d 728, 740 (2012) (quoting O’Connor v. Harger Constr., Inc., 145 Idaho 904, 909 , 188 P.3d 846, 851 (2008)). “[W]here issues of discretion are involved, an award of attorney fees is proper if the appellant fails to make a cogent challenge to the judge’s exercise of discretion.” Andrew | 2 | 2 |
O'Connor v. Harger Construction, Inc.green2 sentences2016“A trial court does not abuse its discretion if it (1) correctly perceives the issue as discretionary, (2) acts within the bounds of discretion and applies the correct legal standards, and (3) reaches the decision through an exercise of reason.” Capstar Radio Operating Co. v. Lawrence, 153 Idaho 411, 423 , 283 P.3d 728, 740 (2012) (quoting O’Connor v. Harger Constr., Inc., 145 Idaho 904, 909 , 188 P.3d 846, 851 (2008)). “[W]here issues of discretion are involved, an award of attorney fees is proper if the appellant fails to make a cogent challenge to the judge’s exercise of discretion.” Andrew 2016“A trial court does not abuse its discretion if it (1) correctly perceives the issue as discretionary, (2) acts within the bounds of discretion and applies the correct legal standards, and (3) reaches the decision through an exercise of reason.” Capstar Radio Operating Co. v. Lawrence, 153 Idaho 411, 423 , 283 P.3d 728, 740 (2012) (quoting O’Connor v. Harger Constr., Inc., 145 Idaho 904, 909 , 188 P.3d 846, 851 (2008)). “[W]here issues of discretion are involved, an award of attorney fees is proper if the appellant fails to make a cogent challenge to the judge’s exercise of discretion.” Andrew | 2 | 2 |
Hunt v. Huntgreen2 sentences2023Hunt v. Hunt, 137 Idaho 18, 23 , 43 P.3d 777, 782 (2002) (“Where issues of discretion are involved, an award of attorney fees is proper if the appellant fails to make a cogent challenge to the judge’s exercise of discretion.”). 2023Hunt v. Hunt, 137 Idaho 18, 23 , 43 P.3d 777, 782 (2002) (“Where issues of discretion are involved, an award of attorney fees is proper if the appellant fails to make a cogent challenge to the judge’s exercise of discretion.”). | 1 | 1 |
Lee v. Nickersongreen2 sentences2016Further, “[T]he law is clearly settled that when awarding attorney fees in a civil action, the district court must consider I.R.C.P. 54(e)(3) factors, but need not make specific written findings of the various factors.” Poole v. Davis, 153 Idaho 604, 607 , 288 P.3d 821, 824 (2012) *194 (quoting Lee v. Nickerson, 146 Idaho 5, 11 , 189 P.3d 467, 473 (2008)). 2016Further, “[T]he law is clearly settled that when awarding attorney fees in a civil action, the district court must consider I.R.C.P. 54(e)(3) factors, but need not make specific written findings of the various factors.” Poole v. Davis, 153 Idaho 604, 607 , 288 P.3d 821, 824 (2012) *194 (quoting Lee v. Nickerson, 146 Idaho 5, 11 , 189 P.3d 467, 473 (2008)). | 1 | 1 |
Randy Poole v. Darin Davisgreen2 sentences2016Further, “[T]he law is clearly settled that when awarding attorney fees in a civil action, the district court must consider I.R.C.P. 54(e)(3) factors, but need not make specific written findings of the various factors.” Poole v. Davis, 153 Idaho 604, 607 , 288 P.3d 821, 824 (2012) *194 (quoting Lee v. Nickerson, 146 Idaho 5, 11 , 189 P.3d 467, 473 (2008)). 2016Further, “[T]he law is clearly settled that when awarding attorney fees in a civil action, the district court must consider I.R.C.P. 54(e)(3) factors, but need not make specific written findings of the various factors.” Poole v. Davis, 153 Idaho 604, 607 , 288 P.3d 821, 824 (2012) *194 (quoting Lee v. Nickerson, 146 Idaho 5, 11 , 189 P.3d 467, 473 (2008)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McPherson v. McPherson
green
2 sentences2002“Where issues of discretion are involved, an award of attorney fees is proper if the appellant fails to make a cogent challenge to the judge’s exercise of discretion.” Andrews v. Idaho Forest Indus., Inc., 117 Idaho 195, 197 , 786 P.2d 586, 589 (Ct.App.1990) (citing McPherson v. McPherson, 112 Idaho 402 , 732 P.2d 371 (Ct.App.1987)). 2002“Where issues of discretion are involved, an award of attorney fees is proper if the appellant fails to make a cogent challenge to the judge’s exercise of discretion.” Andrews v. Idaho Forest Indus., Inc., 117 Idaho 195, 197 , 786 P.2d 586, 589 (Ct.App.1990) (citing McPherson v. McPherson, 112 Idaho 402 , 732 P.2d 371 (Ct.App.1987)). | 4 | 1990–2002 |
Dullea v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
green
1 sentence1983Dullea, supra, next presents a cogent analysis of the reasons why both the gratuity theory and the contract theory suffer from infirmities which undercut their utility in solving problems caused by today’s complex public pension systems: “The chief defect of the gratuity hypothesis is that, in practice, it can be unjust. | 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.