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 1971–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Idaho Falls v. Beco Const. Co., Inc.green2 sentences2020Id. (citing City of Idaho Falls v. Beco Const. Co., Inc., 123 Idaho 516, 522 , 850 P.2d 165, 171 (1993)). 6 The district court actually awarded Alsco $23,206.46 in liquidated damages. 19 Fatty’s Bar, LLC argues that liquidated damages were not appropriate based on Alsco’s failure to introduce any evidence of its actual damages. 2020Id. (citing City of Idaho Falls v. Beco Const. Co., Inc., 123 Idaho 516, 522 , 850 P.2d 165, 171 (1993)). 6 The district court actually awarded Alsco $23,206.46 in liquidated damages. 19 Fatty’s Bar, LLC argues that liquidated damages were not appropriate based on Alsco’s failure to introduce any evidence of its actual damages. | 3 | 3 |
Howard v. Bar Bell Land & Cattle Co.green2 sentences2020“The party asserting that a liquidated damages clause is unenforceable bears the burden of proving that the liquidated damages are not reasonably related to actual damages, and/or are exorbitant and unconscionable.” Schroeder v. Partin, 151 Idaho 471, 476 , 259 P.3d 617, 622 (2011) (citing Howard v. Bar Bell Land & Cattle Co., 81 Idaho 189, 197 , 340 P.2d 103, 107 (1959)). 2020“The party asserting that a liquidated damages clause is unenforceable bears the burden of proving that the liquidated damages are not reasonably related to actual damages, and/or are exorbitant and unconscionable.” Schroeder v. Partin, 151 Idaho 471, 476 , 259 P.3d 617, 622 (2011) (citing Howard v. Bar Bell Land & Cattle Co., 81 Idaho 189, 197 , 340 P.2d 103, 107 (1959)). | 3 | 3 |
Schroeder v. Partingreen2 sentences2025“The party asserting that a liquidated damages clause is unenforceable bears the burden of proving that the liquidated damages are not reasonably related to actual damages, and/or are exorbitant and unconscionable.” Schroeder v. Partin, 151 Idaho 471, 476 , 259 P.3d 617, 622 (2011). 2025“The party asserting that a liquidated damages clause is unenforceable bears the burden of proving that the liquidated damages are not reasonably related to actual damages, and/or are exorbitant and unconscionable.” Schroeder v. Partin, 151 Idaho 471, 476 , 259 P.3d 617, 622 (2011). | 2 | 2 |
Graves v. Cupicgreen2 sentences1993This Court has heretofore held that where the liquidated damages clause in the parties’ contract was unenforceable as a penalty, “the damages allowable are those which the law provides for breach of the contract as though no such provision had been inserted therein.” Graves v. Cupic, 75 Idaho 451, 459 , 272 P.2d 1020, 1025 (1954) (citing Perkins v. Spencer, 121 Utah 468 , 243 P.2d 446 (1952)). 1993This Court has heretofore held that where the liquidated damages clause in the parties’ contract was unenforceable as a penalty, “the damages allowable are those which the law provides for breach of the contract as though no such provision had been inserted therein.” Graves v. Cupic, 75 Idaho 451, 459 , 272 P.2d 1020, 1025 (1954) (citing Perkins v. Spencer, 121 Utah 468 , 243 P.2d 446 (1952)). | 1 | 4 |
Hull v. Gieslergreen2 sentences2019Trumble equates the forfeiture provision to a liquidated damages clause, noting that forfeiture provisions should not be enforced when they are “designed to deter a breach or to punish the breaching party rather than compensate the injured party for damages occasioned by the breach.” Hull v. Giesler, 156 Idaho 765, 779 , 331 P.3d 507, 521 (2014). 2019Trumble equates the forfeiture provision to a liquidated damages clause, noting that forfeiture provisions should not be enforced when they are “designed to deter a breach or to punish the breaching party rather than compensate the injured party for damages occasioned by the breach.” Hull v. Giesler, 156 Idaho 765, 779 , 331 P.3d 507, 521 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
Magic Valley Truck Brokers, Inc. v. Meyergreen2 sentences2019Trumble also cites 12 Magic Valley Truck Brokers, Inc. v. Meyer, 133 Idaho 110, 117 , 982 P.2d 945, 952 (Ct. App. 1999) in support of his argument. 2019Trumble also cites 12 Magic Valley Truck Brokers, Inc. v. Meyer, 133 Idaho 110, 117 , 982 P.2d 945, 952 (Ct. App. 1999) in support of his argument. | 1 | 1 |
Clampitt v. A.M.R. Corp.green2 sentences2011Corp., 109 Idaho 145, 149 , 706 P.2d 34, 38 (1985). 2011Corp., 109 Idaho 145, 149 , 706 P.2d 34, 38 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
Fleming v. Hathawaygreen2 sentences1999Howard v. Bar Bell Land & Cattle Co., 81 Idaho 189, 197 , 340 P.2d 103, 107 (1959); McEnroe, 106 Idaho at 332 , 678 P.2d at 601 ; Lockhart Co. v. B.F.K., Ltd., 107 Idaho 633, 636 , 691 P.2d 1248, 1251 (Ct.App. 1984); Fleming v. Hathaway, 107 Idaho 157, 161 , 686 P.2d 837, 841 (Ct.App.1984). 1999Howard v. Bar Bell Land & Cattle Co., 81 Idaho 189, 197 , 340 P.2d 103, 107 (1959); McEnroe, 106 Idaho at 332 , 678 P.2d at 601 ; Lockhart Co. v. B.F.K., Ltd., 107 Idaho 633, 636 , 691 P.2d 1248, 1251 (Ct.App. 1984); Fleming v. Hathaway, 107 Idaho 157, 161 , 686 P.2d 837, 841 (Ct.App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Lockhart Co. v. B.F.K. Ltd.green2 sentences1999Howard v. Bar Bell Land & Cattle Co., 81 Idaho 189, 197 , 340 P.2d 103, 107 (1959); McEnroe, 106 Idaho at 332 , 678 P.2d at 601 ; Lockhart Co. v. B.F.K., Ltd., 107 Idaho 633, 636 , 691 P.2d 1248, 1251 (Ct.App. 1984); Fleming v. Hathaway, 107 Idaho 157, 161 , 686 P.2d 837, 841 (Ct.App.1984). 1999Howard v. Bar Bell Land & Cattle Co., 81 Idaho 189, 197 , 340 P.2d 103, 107 (1959); McEnroe, 106 Idaho at 332 , 678 P.2d at 601 ; Lockhart Co. v. B.F.K., Ltd., 107 Idaho 633, 636 , 691 P.2d 1248, 1251 (Ct.App. 1984); Fleming v. Hathaway, 107 Idaho 157, 161 , 686 P.2d 837, 841 (Ct.App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Young Electric Sign Company v. Cappsgreen2 sentences1982See, e.g., Young Electric Sign Co. v. Capps, 94 Idaho 518 , 492 P.2d 52 (1971); Melton v. Amar, 83 Idaho 99 , 358 P.2d 855 (1961); Graves v. Cupic, 75 Idaho 451 , 272 P.2d 1020 (1954). 1982See, e.g., Young Electric Sign Co. v. Capps, 94 Idaho 518 , 492 P.2d 52 (1971); Melton v. Amar, 83 Idaho 99 , 358 P.2d 855 (1961); Graves v. Cupic, 75 Idaho 451 , 272 P.2d 1020 (1954). | 1 | 1 |
Lisher v. Krasseltgreen2 sentences1982See, e.g., Young Electric Sign Co. v. Capps, 94 Idaho 518 , 492 P.2d 52 (1971); Melton v. Amar, 83 Idaho 99 , 358 P.2d 855 (1961); Graves v. Cupic, 75 Idaho 451 , 272 P.2d 1020 (1954). 1982See, e.g., Young Electric Sign Co. v. Capps, 94 Idaho 518 , 492 P.2d 52 (1971); Melton v. Amar, 83 Idaho 99 , 358 P.2d 855 (1961); Graves v. Cupic, 75 Idaho 451 , 272 P.2d 1020 (1954). | 1 | 1 |
Idaho State University v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences1978In Idaho State University v. Mitchell, 97 Idaho 724, 727 , 552 P.2d 776, 779 (1976), this Court stated: [I]f parties to a contract have provided the measure of damages to be recoverable for breach of the duties imposed by the contract, they are bound by such provision and liability thereunder is restricted to the terms of the contract. 1978In Idaho State University v. Mitchell, 97 Idaho 724, 727 , 552 P.2d 776, 779 (1976), this Court stated: [I]f parties to a contract have provided the measure of damages to be recoverable for breach of the duties imposed by the contract, they are bound by such provision and liability thereunder is restricted to the terms of the contract. | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Nunnenkampgreen2 sentences1971As stated in Walker v. Nunnencamp, 84 Idaho 485, 490 , 373 P.2d 559, 562 (1962): “ * * * Our rule pertaining to contract provisions for liquidated damages requires that they be in a reasonable relation to the actual damages. 1971As stated in Walker v. Nunnencamp, 84 Idaho 485, 490 , 373 P.2d 559, 562 (1962): “ * * * Our rule pertaining to contract provisions for liquidated damages requires that they be in a reasonable relation to the actual damages. | 1 | 1 |
YOUNG ELECTRIC SIGN COMPANY v. Fohrmangreen1 sentence1971See, e. g., Young Electric Sign Co. v. Fohrman, 466 P.2d 846 (Nev.1970), enforcing an identical provision to the clause at issue herein; Ray v. Electrical Products Consolidated, supra, upholding a 75% clause in sign lease; Mosler v. Woodell, 189 Wash. 583 , 66 P.2d 353 (1937), enforcing an 80% clause in sign lease; Bassett v. Claude Neon Federal Co., 65 F.2d 526 (10th Cir. 1933), upholding a 75% clause in a sign rental agreement. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Margaret H. Wayne Trust v. Lipsky
green
2 sentences2017In Lipsky, this Court held that the presence of a liquidated damages clause in an earnest money agreement did not preclude the non-defaulting seller from recovery of actual damages suffered when the buyer breached the agreement. 123 Idaho at 257 , 846 P.2d at 908 . 2017In Lipsky, this Court held that the presence of a liquidated damages clause in an earnest money agreement did not preclude the non-defaulting seller from recovery of actual damages suffered when the buyer breached the agreement. 123 Idaho at 257 , 846 P.2d at 908 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
McEnroe v. Morgan
green
2 sentences1999Howard v. Bar Bell Land & Cattle Co., 81 Idaho 189, 197 , 340 P.2d 103, 107 (1959); McEnroe, 106 Idaho at 332 , 678 P.2d at 601 ; Lockhart Co. v. B.F.K., Ltd., 107 Idaho 633, 636 , 691 P.2d 1248, 1251 (Ct.App. 1984); Fleming v. Hathaway, 107 Idaho 157, 161 , 686 P.2d 837, 841 (Ct.App.1984). 1999Howard v. Bar Bell Land & Cattle Co., 81 Idaho 189, 197 , 340 P.2d 103, 107 (1959); McEnroe, 106 Idaho at 332 , 678 P.2d at 601 ; Lockhart Co. v. B.F.K., Ltd., 107 Idaho 633, 636 , 691 P.2d 1248, 1251 (Ct.App. 1984); Fleming v. Hathaway, 107 Idaho 157, 161 , 686 P.2d 837, 841 (Ct.App.1984). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Perkins v. Spencer
green
2 sentences1993This Court has heretofore held that where the liquidated damages clause in the parties’ contract was unenforceable as a penalty, “the damages allowable are those which the law provides for breach of the contract as though no such provision had been inserted therein.” Graves v. Cupic, 75 Idaho 451, 459 , 272 P.2d 1020, 1025 (1954) (citing Perkins v. Spencer, 121 Utah 468 , 243 P.2d 446 (1952)). 1993This Court has heretofore held that where the liquidated damages clause in the parties’ contract was unenforceable as a penalty, “the damages allowable are those which the law provides for breach of the contract as though no such provision had been inserted therein.” Graves v. Cupic, 75 Idaho 451, 459 , 272 P.2d 1020, 1025 (1954) (citing Perkins v. Spencer, 121 Utah 468 , 243 P.2d 446 (1952)). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Coast Sash & Door Co. v. Strom Construction Co.
green
2 sentences1993The contract also contained a provision that “The Contractor agrees ... to make no demand for liquidated damages or penalty for delay in any sum in excess of such amount as may be specifically named in the subcontract.” Coast. 65 Wash.2d at 280 , 396 P.2d at 804 . 1993The contract also contained a provision that “The Contractor agrees ... to make no demand for liquidated damages or penalty for delay in any sum in excess of such amount as may be specifically named in the subcontract.” Coast. 65 Wash.2d at 280 , 396 P.2d at 804 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Jack B. Parson Construction
green
2 sentences1993What this Court actually did in Parson was to look for wrongful acts in analyzing whether the beneficiary of the liquidated damages clause had contributed to the delay in the completion of the contract, concluding that “[i]n these circumstances and under the authorities cited by [respondent], it would be entirely inequitable to allow [appellant contractor] to recover against [respondent subcontractor] liquidated damages for delay....” Parson, 93 Idaho at 120 , 456 P.2d at 764 . 1993What this Court actually did in Parson was to look for wrongful acts in analyzing whether the beneficiary of the liquidated damages clause had contributed to the delay in the completion of the contract, concluding that “[i]n these circumstances and under the authorities cited by [respondent], it would be entirely inequitable to allow [appellant contractor] to recover against [respondent subcontractor] liquidated damages for delay....” Parson, 93 Idaho at 120 , 456 P.2d at 764 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Melton v. Amar
green
2 sentences1982See, e.g., Young Electric Sign Co. v. Capps, 94 Idaho 518 , 492 P.2d 52 (1971); Melton v. Amar, 83 Idaho 99 , 358 P.2d 855 (1961); Graves v. Cupic, 75 Idaho 451 , 272 P.2d 1020 (1954). 1982See, e.g., Young Electric Sign Co. v. Capps, 94 Idaho 518 , 492 P.2d 52 (1971); Melton v. Amar, 83 Idaho 99 , 358 P.2d 855 (1961); Graves v. Cupic, 75 Idaho 451 , 272 P.2d 1020 (1954). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Texlouana Producing & Refining Co. v. Wall
green
2 sentences1978E. g., Karr v. Stevens, 297 S.W. 287 (Tex.Civ.App.1927); Texlouana Producing & Refining Co. v. Wall, 257 S.W. 875 (Tex.Com.App.1924). 1978E.g., Karr v. Stevens, 297 S.W. 287 (Tex.Civ.App. 1927); Texlouana Producing & Refining Co. v. Wall, 257 S.W. 875 (Tex.Com.App. 1924). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Karr v. Stevens
neutral
2 sentences1978E. g., Karr v. Stevens, 297 S.W. 287 (Tex.Civ.App.1927); Texlouana Producing & Refining Co. v. Wall, 257 S.W. 875 (Tex.Com.App.1924). 1978E.g., Karr v. Stevens, 297 S.W. 287 (Tex.Civ.App. 1927); Texlouana Producing & Refining Co. v. Wall, 257 S.W. 875 (Tex.Com.App. 1924). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Mosler v. Woodell
green
2 sentences1971See, e. g., Young Electric Sign Co. v. Fohrman, 466 P.2d 846 (Nev.1970), enforcing an identical provision to the clause at issue herein; Ray v. Electrical Products Consolidated, supra, upholding a 75% clause in sign lease; Mosler v. Woodell, 189 Wash. 583 , 66 P.2d 353 (1937), enforcing an 80% clause in sign lease; Bassett v. Claude Neon Federal Co., 65 F.2d 526 (10th Cir. 1933), upholding a 75% clause in a sign rental agreement. 1971See, e. g., Young Electric Sign Co. v. Fohrman, 466 P.2d 846 (Nev.1970), enforcing an identical provision to the clause at issue herein; Ray v. Electrical Products Consolidated, supra, upholding a 75% clause in sign lease; Mosler v. Woodell, 189 Wash. 583 , 66 P.2d 353 (1937), enforcing an 80% clause in sign lease; Bassett v. Claude Neon Federal Co., 65 F.2d 526 (10th Cir. 1933), upholding a 75% clause in a sign rental agreement. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Bassett v. Claude Neon Federal Co. of Kansas
green
1 sentence1971See, e. g., Young Electric Sign Co. v. Fohrman, 466 P.2d 846 (Nev.1970), enforcing an identical provision to the clause at issue herein; Ray v. Electrical Products Consolidated, supra, upholding a 75% clause in sign lease; Mosler v. Woodell, 189 Wash. 583 , 66 P.2d 353 (1937), enforcing an 80% clause in sign lease; Bassett v. Claude Neon Federal Co., 65 F.2d 526 (10th Cir. 1933), upholding a 75% clause in a sign rental agreement. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.