refusal error in Idaho

15 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1912–2020 0 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.

Followed or applied (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
Halen v. Stategreen idaho · 2002 · cited in 4 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2010–2020 2 sentences 2020See Halen v. State, 136 Idaho 829, 834 , 41 P.3d 257, 262 (2002) (“Motorists who refuse to submit to requested tests are entitled to have their licenses reinstated if they can establish at the refusal hearing that they were not completely advised . . . .”). 2020See Halen v. State, 136 Idaho 829, 834 , 41 P.3d 257, 262 (2002) (“Motorists who refuse to submit to requested tests are entitled to have their licenses reinstated if they can establish at the refusal hearing that they were not completely advised . . . .”).	4	4

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (27)

Case	Cited	Years
Matter of Griffiths green idaho · 1987 2 sentences 2002Griffiths, 113 Idaho at 370 , 744 P.2d at 98 . 2002Griffiths, 113 Idaho at 370 , 744 P.2d at 98 .	1	2002–2002
Moore v. Kujath green minn · 1947 2 sentences 1960In the case of Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107 , 29 N.W.2d 883 , 175 A.L.R. 1007 , the plaintiff Moore approached the intersection, where the collision occurred, from the north. 1960In the case of Moore v. Kujath, 225 Minn. 107 , 29 N.W.2d 883 , 175 A.L.R. 1007 , the plaintiff Moore approached the intersection, where the collision occurred, from the north.	1	1960–1960
Speck v. Sarver green cal · 1942 2 sentences 1959Koch v. Elkins, 71 Idaho 50 , 225 P.2d 457 ; Graham v. Milsap, 77 Idaho 179 , 290 P.2d 744 ; Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 490 , 82 P.2d 720 ; Speck v. Sarver, 20 Cal.2d 585 , 128 P.2d 16 ; Cole v. Ridings, 95 Cal. App.2d 136 , 212 P.2d 597 ; Brandelius v. City and County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. 2d 729 , 306 P.2d 432 . 1959Koch v. Elkins, 71 Idaho 50 , 225 P.2d 457 ; Graham v. Milsap, 77 Idaho 179 , 290 P.2d 744 ; Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 490 , 82 P.2d 720 ; Speck v. Sarver, 20 Cal.2d 585 , 128 P.2d 16 ; Cole v. Ridings, 95 Cal. App.2d 136 , 212 P.2d 597 ; Brandelius v. City and County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. 2d 729 , 306 P.2d 432 .	1	1959–1959
Campbell v. City of Los Angeles green calctapp · 1938 2 sentences 1959Koch v. Elkins, 71 Idaho 50 , 225 P.2d 457 ; Graham v. Milsap, 77 Idaho 179 , 290 P.2d 744 ; Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 490 , 82 P.2d 720 ; Speck v. Sarver, 20 Cal.2d 585 , 128 P.2d 16 ; Cole v. Ridings, 95 Cal. App.2d 136 , 212 P.2d 597 ; Brandelius v. City and County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. 2d 729 , 306 P.2d 432 . 1959Koch v. Elkins, 71 Idaho 50 , 225 P.2d 457 ; Graham v. Milsap, 77 Idaho 179 , 290 P.2d 744 ; Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 490 , 82 P.2d 720 ; Speck v. Sarver, 20 Cal.2d 585 , 128 P.2d 16 ; Cole v. Ridings, 95 Cal. App.2d 136 , 212 P.2d 597 ; Brandelius v. City and County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. 2d 729 , 306 P.2d 432 .	1	1959–1959
Brandelius v. City & County of San Francisco green cal · 1957 2 sentences 1959Koch v. Elkins, 71 Idaho 50 , 225 P.2d 457 ; Graham v. Milsap, 77 Idaho 179 , 290 P.2d 744 ; Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 490 , 82 P.2d 720 ; Speck v. Sarver, 20 Cal.2d 585 , 128 P.2d 16 ; Cole v. Ridings, 95 Cal. App.2d 136 , 212 P.2d 597 ; Brandelius v. City and County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. 2d 729 , 306 P.2d 432 . 1959Koch v. Elkins, 71 Idaho 50 , 225 P.2d 457 ; Graham v. Milsap, 77 Idaho 179 , 290 P.2d 744 ; Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 490 , 82 P.2d 720 ; Speck v. Sarver, 20 Cal.2d 585 , 128 P.2d 16 ; Cole v. Ridings, 95 Cal. App.2d 136 , 212 P.2d 597 ; Brandelius v. City and County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. 2d 729 , 306 P.2d 432 .	1	1959–1959
Graham v. Milsap green idaho · 1955 2 sentences 1959Koch v. Elkins, 71 Idaho 50 , 225 P.2d 457 ; Graham v. Milsap, 77 Idaho 179 , 290 P.2d 744 ; Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 490 , 82 P.2d 720 ; Speck v. Sarver, 20 Cal.2d 585 , 128 P.2d 16 ; Cole v. Ridings, 95 Cal. App.2d 136 , 212 P.2d 597 ; Brandelius v. City and County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. 2d 729 , 306 P.2d 432 . 1959Koch v. Elkins, 71 Idaho 50 , 225 P.2d 457 ; Graham v. Milsap, 77 Idaho 179 , 290 P.2d 744 ; Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 490 , 82 P.2d 720 ; Speck v. Sarver, 20 Cal.2d 585 , 128 P.2d 16 ; Cole v. Ridings, 95 Cal. App.2d 136 , 212 P.2d 597 ; Brandelius v. City and County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. 2d 729 , 306 P.2d 432 .	1	1959–1959
Cole v. Ridings green calctapp · 1949 2 sentences 1959Koch v. Elkins, 71 Idaho 50 , 225 P.2d 457 ; Graham v. Milsap, 77 Idaho 179 , 290 P.2d 744 ; Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 490 , 82 P.2d 720 ; Speck v. Sarver, 20 Cal.2d 585 , 128 P.2d 16 ; Cole v. Ridings, 95 Cal. App.2d 136 , 212 P.2d 597 ; Brandelius v. City and County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. 2d 729 , 306 P.2d 432 . 1959Koch v. Elkins, 71 Idaho 50 , 225 P.2d 457 ; Graham v. Milsap, 77 Idaho 179 , 290 P.2d 744 ; Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 490 , 82 P.2d 720 ; Speck v. Sarver, 20 Cal.2d 585 , 128 P.2d 16 ; Cole v. Ridings, 95 Cal. App.2d 136 , 212 P.2d 597 ; Brandelius v. City and County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. 2d 729 , 306 P.2d 432 .	1	1959–1959
Koch v. Elkins green idaho · 1950 2 sentences 1959Koch v. Elkins, 71 Idaho 50 , 225 P.2d 457 ; Graham v. Milsap, 77 Idaho 179 , 290 P.2d 744 ; Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 490 , 82 P.2d 720 ; Speck v. Sarver, 20 Cal.2d 585 , 128 P.2d 16 ; Cole v. Ridings, 95 Cal. App.2d 136 , 212 P.2d 597 ; Brandelius v. City and County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. 2d 729 , 306 P.2d 432 . 1959Koch v. Elkins, 71 Idaho 50 , 225 P.2d 457 ; Graham v. Milsap, 77 Idaho 179 , 290 P.2d 744 ; Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.2d 490 , 82 P.2d 720 ; Speck v. Sarver, 20 Cal.2d 585 , 128 P.2d 16 ; Cole v. Ridings, 95 Cal. App.2d 136 , 212 P.2d 597 ; Brandelius v. City and County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. 2d 729 , 306 P.2d 432 .	1	1959–1959
State v. Boyles neutral idaho · 1921 2 sentences 1958State v. Boyles, 34 Idaho 283 , 200 P. 125 ; State v. Farnsworth, 51 Idaho 768 , 10 P.2d 295 ; Judd v. Oregon Short Line R. 1958State v. Boyles, 34 Idaho 283 , 200 P. 125 ; State v. Farnsworth, 51 Idaho 768 , 10 P.2d 295 ; Judd v. Oregon Short Line R.	1	1958–1958
State v. Farnsworth green idaho · 1932 2 sentences 1958State v. Boyles, 34 Idaho 283 , 200 P. 125 ; State v. Farnsworth, 51 Idaho 768 , 10 P.2d 295 ; Judd v. Oregon Short Line R. 1958State v. Boyles, 34 Idaho 283 , 200 P. 125 ; State v. Farnsworth, 51 Idaho 768 , 10 P.2d 295 ; Judd v. Oregon Short Line R.	1	1958–1958
State v. Scott green idaho · 1951 2 sentences 1953State v. Ayres, 70 Idaho 18 , 211 P.2d 142 ; State v. Newman, 70 Idaho 184 , 214 P.2d 159 ; State v. Scott, 72 Idaho 202 , 239 P.2d 258 ; State v. Rutten, 73 Idaho 25 , 245 P.2d 778 , Judgment affirmed. 1953State v. Ayres, 70 Idaho 18 , 211 P.2d 142 ; State v. Newman, 70 Idaho 184 , 214 P.2d 159 ; State v. Scott, 72 Idaho 202 , 239 P.2d 258 ; State v. Rutten, 73 Idaho 25 , 245 P.2d 778 , Judgment affirmed.	1	1953–1953
State v. Ayres green idaho · 1949 2 sentences 1953State v. Ayres, 70 Idaho 18 , 211 P.2d 142 ; State v. Newman, 70 Idaho 184 , 214 P.2d 159 ; State v. Scott, 72 Idaho 202 , 239 P.2d 258 ; State v. Rutten, 73 Idaho 25 , 245 P.2d 778 , Judgment affirmed. 1953State v. Ayres, 70 Idaho 18 , 211 P.2d 142 ; State v. Newman, 70 Idaho 184 , 214 P.2d 159 ; State v. Scott, 72 Idaho 202 , 239 P.2d 258 ; State v. Rutten, 73 Idaho 25 , 245 P.2d 778 , Judgment affirmed.	1	1953–1953
State v. Alvord green idaho · 1928 2 sentences 1953State v. Alvord, 47 Idaho 162 , 272 P. 1010 . 1953State v. Alvord, 47 Idaho 162 , 272 P. 1010 .	1	1953–1953
State v. Newman green idaho · 1950 2 sentences 1953State v. Ayres, 70 Idaho 18 , 211 P.2d 142 ; State v. Newman, 70 Idaho 184 , 214 P.2d 159 ; State v. Scott, 72 Idaho 202 , 239 P.2d 258 ; State v. Rutten, 73 Idaho 25 , 245 P.2d 778 , Judgment affirmed. 1953State v. Ayres, 70 Idaho 18 , 211 P.2d 142 ; State v. Newman, 70 Idaho 184 , 214 P.2d 159 ; State v. Scott, 72 Idaho 202 , 239 P.2d 258 ; State v. Rutten, 73 Idaho 25 , 245 P.2d 778 , Judgment affirmed.	1	1953–1953
State v. Rutten green idaho · 1952 2 sentences 1953State v. Ayres, 70 Idaho 18 , 211 P.2d 142 ; State v. Newman, 70 Idaho 184 , 214 P.2d 159 ; State v. Scott, 72 Idaho 202 , 239 P.2d 258 ; State v. Rutten, 73 Idaho 25 , 245 P.2d 778 , Judgment affirmed. 1953State v. Ayres, 70 Idaho 18 , 211 P.2d 142 ; State v. Newman, 70 Idaho 184 , 214 P.2d 159 ; State v. Scott, 72 Idaho 202 , 239 P.2d 258 ; State v. Rutten, 73 Idaho 25 , 245 P.2d 778 , Judgment affirmed.	1	1953–1953
State v. Williams neutral idaho · 1922 2 sentences 1932(State v. Williams, 36 Ida. 214 , 209 Pac. 1068 ; State v. Chacon, 37 Ida. 442 , 216 Pac. 725 ; Moreland v. Mason, 45 Ida. 143 , 260 Pac. 1035 ; State v. Brace, 49 Ida. 580 , 290 Pac. 722 .) Requested Instruction No. 2 was erroneous. 1932(State v. Williams, 36 Ida. 214 , 209 Pac. 1068 ; State v. Chacon, 37 Ida. 442 , 216 Pac. 725 ; Moreland v. Mason, 45 Ida. 143 , 260 Pac. 1035 ; State v. Brace, 49 Ida. 580 , 290 Pac. 722 .) Requested Instruction No. 2 was erroneous.	1	1932–1932
State v. Chacon neutral idaho · 1923 2 sentences 1932(State v. Williams, 36 Ida. 214 , 209 Pac. 1068 ; State v. Chacon, 37 Ida. 442 , 216 Pac. 725 ; Moreland v. Mason, 45 Ida. 143 , 260 Pac. 1035 ; State v. Brace, 49 Ida. 580 , 290 Pac. 722 .) Requested Instruction No. 2 was erroneous. 1932(State v. Williams, 36 Ida. 214 , 209 Pac. 1068 ; State v. Chacon, 37 Ida. 442 , 216 Pac. 725 ; Moreland v. Mason, 45 Ida. 143 , 260 Pac. 1035 ; State v. Brace, 49 Ida. 580 , 290 Pac. 722 .) Requested Instruction No. 2 was erroneous.	1	1932–1932
Moreland v. Mason green idaho · 1927 2 sentences 1932(State v. Williams, 36 Ida. 214 , 209 Pac. 1068 ; State v. Chacon, 37 Ida. 442 , 216 Pac. 725 ; Moreland v. Mason, 45 Ida. 143 , 260 Pac. 1035 ; State v. Brace, 49 Ida. 580 , 290 Pac. 722 .) Requested Instruction No. 2 was erroneous. 1932(State v. Williams, 36 Ida. 214 , 209 Pac. 1068 ; State v. Chacon, 37 Ida. 442 , 216 Pac. 725 ; Moreland v. Mason, 45 Ida. 143 , 260 Pac. 1035 ; State v. Brace, 49 Ida. 580 , 290 Pac. 722 .) Requested Instruction No. 2 was erroneous.	1	1932–1932
State v. Brace neutral idaho · 1930 2 sentences 1932(State v. Williams, 36 Ida. 214 , 209 Pac. 1068 ; State v. Chacon, 37 Ida. 442 , 216 Pac. 725 ; Moreland v. Mason, 45 Ida. 143 , 260 Pac. 1035 ; State v. Brace, 49 Ida. 580 , 290 Pac. 722 .) Requested Instruction No. 2 was erroneous. 1932(State v. Williams, 36 Ida. 214 , 209 Pac. 1068 ; State v. Chacon, 37 Ida. 442 , 216 Pac. 725 ; Moreland v. Mason, 45 Ida. 143 , 260 Pac. 1035 ; State v. Brace, 49 Ida. 580 , 290 Pac. 722 .) Requested Instruction No. 2 was erroneous.	1	1932–1932
State v. Marcoe green idaho · 1920 2 sentences 1927(State v. McLennan, 40 Ida. 286 , 231 Pac. 718 ; State v. Marcoe, 33 Ida. 284 , 193 Pac. 80 .) Objection is made to certain instructions singling out evidence, in one case defendants’ admissions, and in another case certain changes made by them in hook entries, as proper matter for the jury to consider with all the other evidence. 1927(State v. McLennan, 40 Ida. 286 , 231 Pac. 718 ; State v. Marcoe, 33 Ida. 284 , 193 Pac. 80 .) Objection is made to certain instructions singling out evidence, in one case defendants’ admissions, and in another case certain changes made by them in hook entries, as proper matter for the jury to consider with all the other evidence.	1	1927–1927
State v. McLennan green idaho · 1925 2 sentences 1927(State v. McLennan, 40 Ida. 286 , 231 Pac. 718 ; State v. Marcoe, 33 Ida. 284 , 193 Pac. 80 .) Objection is made to certain instructions singling out evidence, in one case defendants’ admissions, and in another case certain changes made by them in hook entries, as proper matter for the jury to consider with all the other evidence. 1927(State v. McLennan, 40 Ida. 286 , 231 Pac. 718 ; State v. Marcoe, 33 Ida. 284 , 193 Pac. 80 .) Objection is made to certain instructions singling out evidence, in one case defendants’ admissions, and in another case certain changes made by them in hook entries, as proper matter for the jury to consider with all the other evidence.	1	1927–1927
Crosett v. Whelan neutral cal · 1872 1 sentence 1925While such *585 method of conducting a trial is ordinarily more conducive to confusion than to a correct conclusion as to the merits of the points presented by an objection, nevertheless it cannot be said that the .method pursued in the present case was tantamount to a refusal to rule at all upon the objections as they were made.” However,, the evidence received subject to objection was before the court, and unless a motion to strike was thereafter made and it was stricken, the court’s failure to exclude it amounts to a ruling admitting the evidence. (38 Cyc. 1344, sec. e; McKee v. Bassick Min	1	1925–1925
German-American Bank v. Manning neutral moctapp · 1908 2 sentences 1925While such 585 method of conducting a trial is ordinarily more conducive to confusion than to a correct conclusion as to the merits of the points presented by an objection, nevertheless it cannot be said that the .method pursued in the present case was tantamount to a refusal to rule at all upon the objections as they were made.” However,, the evidence received subject to objection was before the court, and unless a motion to strike was thereafter made and it was stricken, the court’s failure to exclude it amounts to a ruling admitting the evidence. (38 Cyc. 1344, sec. e; McKee v. Bassick Min 1925While such 585 method of conducting a trial is ordinarily more conducive to confusion than to a correct conclusion as to the merits of the points presented by an objection, nevertheless it cannot be said that the .method pursued in the present case was tantamount to a refusal to rule at all upon the objections as they were made.” However,, the evidence received subject to objection was before the court, and unless a motion to strike was thereafter made and it was stricken, the court’s failure to exclude it amounts to a ruling admitting the evidence. (38 Cyc. 1344, sec. e; McKee v. Bassick Min	1	1925–1925
McKee v. Bassick Mining Co. neutral colo · 1885 1 sentence 1925While such *585 method of conducting a trial is ordinarily more conducive to confusion than to a correct conclusion as to the merits of the points presented by an objection, nevertheless it cannot be said that the .method pursued in the present case was tantamount to a refusal to rule at all upon the objections as they were made.” However,, the evidence received subject to objection was before the court, and unless a motion to strike was thereafter made and it was stricken, the court’s failure to exclude it amounts to a ruling admitting the evidence. (38 Cyc. 1344, sec. e; McKee v. Bassick Min	1	1925–1925
Plummer v. State green ga · 1900 2 sentences 1921(Plummer v. State, 111 Ga. 839 , 36 S. E. 233 ; Merriweather v. Sayre Min. & Mfg. 1921(Plummer v. State, 111 Ga. 839 , 36 S. E. 233 ; Merriweather v. Sayre Min. & Mfg.	1	1921–1921
Wilson v. Buchanan neutral pa · 1895 2 sentences 1912So, therefore, that question was res adjudicata; and the court in this case properly held that appellant was a party to, and bound by any order or judgment in, the settlement suit.” In Wilson v. Buchanan, 170 Pa. 14 , 32 Atl. 620 , the court held that a refusal of a rule to open a judgment is a bar to a bill in equity, based on the same grounds for the same relief. 1912So, therefore, that question was res adjudicata; and the court in this case properly held that appellant was a party to, and bound by any order or judgment in, the settlement suit.” In Wilson v. Buchanan, 170 Pa. 14 , 32 Atl. 620 , the court held that a refusal of a rule to open a judgment is a bar to a bill in equity, based on the same grounds for the same relief.	1	1912–1912
Moore v. Horner neutral ind · 1896 2 sentences 1912In Moore v. Horner, 146 Ind. 287 , 45 N. E. 341 , the court held that a denial of a motion made in an action to set aside a judgment rendered on default is an adjudication which will bar a subsequent proceeding under the statute for the same purpose, and the presumption is that the same was deter mined upon its merits unless the contrary is shown, and that it is well-settled law that whenever a matter is adjudicated and finally determined by a competent tribunal, it is considered forever at rest, and said: “We think the action of the court in overruling said motion made in 1893 to set aside th 1912In Moore v. Horner, 146 Ind. 287 , 45 N. E. 341 , the court held that a denial of a motion made in an action to set aside a judgment rendered on default is an adjudication which will bar a subsequent proceeding under the statute for the same purpose, and the presumption is that the same was deter mined upon its merits unless the contrary is shown, and that it is well-settled law that whenever a matter is adjudicated and finally determined by a competent tribunal, it is considered forever at rest, and said: “We think the action of the court in overruling said motion made in 1893 to set aside th	1	1912–1912

Statutes the citing opinions construe

ID § Idaho Code § 18-8002 (5) ID § Idaho Code § 18-8004 (4) ID § Idaho Code § 18-8002A (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 365 (1874–2026) CA 118 (1858–2024) IL 107 (1885–2024) MO 96 (1886–2014) MS 56 (1889–2024) WI 56 (1891–2026) MA 56 (1863–2025) IN 55 (1875–2014) NY 51 (1871–2026) PA 34 (1849–2026) AL 30 (1894–2007) VA 26 (1912–2026) WV 24 (1896–2021) OH 23 (1889–2024) NM 22 (1910–2023) GA 19 (1882–2024) ID 15 (1912–2020) CO 15 (1922–2026) NE 14 (1885–2024) FL 14 (1913–2014) IA 13 (1897–2021) KS 12 (1892–1996) WY 11 (1903–2020) AR 11 (1914–2020) OK 11 (1911–2008) AZ 10 (1966–2021) NV 9 (1887–2013) MD 9 (1963–2010) MN 9 (1902–2015) NJ 8 (1964–2020) ME 8 (1926–2019) WA 8 (1917–2000) NC 7 (1947–2019) KY 7 (1916–2024) OR 7 (1885–2015) ND 6 (1960–2007) UT 6 (1968–2026) VT 5 (1884–1990) MT 5 (1907–2016) SD 5 (1925–2014) NH 4 (1974–1997) LA 4 (1969–2006) CT 4 (1975–2018) DC 4 (1989–2025) HI 4 (1945–1999) SC 4 (1927–2024) RI 3 (1970–1987) MI 3 (1927–1978) TN 3 (1935–2013) AK 2 (1978–1981)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check

Your account

Appearance