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 1966–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Challis Irrigation Co. v. Stategreen2 sentences1989The second element is a requirement that the first event be a “substantial factor” in producing the succeeding event. [Citation omitted.] Thus, a defendant’s conduct is the cause in fact of an event only if it was a material element and a substantial factor in bringing it about. [Citation omitted.] Edmark Motors, Inc. v. Twin Cities Toyota, Inc., 111 Idaho 846, 849 , 727 P.2d 1274, 1277 (Ct.App.1986) (quoting Challis Irrigation Co. v. State, 107 Idaho 338, 343 , 689 P.2d 230, 235 (Ct.App.1984)). 1989The second element is a requirement that the first event be a “substantial factor” in producing the succeeding event. [Citation omitted.] Thus, a defendant’s conduct is the cause in fact of an event only if it was a material element and a substantial factor in bringing it about. [Citation omitted.] Edmark Motors, Inc. v. Twin Cities Toyota, Inc., 111 Idaho 846, 849 , 727 P.2d 1274, 1277 (Ct.App.1986) (quoting Challis Irrigation Co. v. State, 107 Idaho 338, 343 , 689 P.2d 230, 235 (Ct.App.1984)). | 1 | 2 |
Susan Baldwin v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of ALgreen1 sentence2012In support, the district court cited Baldwin v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama, where the Eleventh Circuit held that just over three months was an unreasonable delay in reporting. 480 F.3d 1287, 1307 (11th Cir.2007) (The plaintiff “waited too long to complain. | 1 | 1 |
Edmark Motors, Inc. v. Twin Cities Toyota, Inc.green2 sentences1989The second element is a requirement that the first event be a “substantial factor” in producing the succeeding event. [Citation omitted.] Thus, a defendant’s conduct is the cause in fact of an event only if it was a material element and a substantial factor in bringing it about. [Citation omitted.] Edmark Motors, Inc. v. Twin Cities Toyota, Inc., 111 Idaho 846, 849 , 727 P.2d 1274, 1277 (Ct.App.1986) (quoting Challis Irrigation Co. v. State, 107 Idaho 338, 343 , 689 P.2d 230, 235 (Ct.App.1984)). 1989The second element is a requirement that the first event be a “substantial factor” in producing the succeeding event. [Citation omitted.] Thus, a defendant’s conduct is the cause in fact of an event only if it was a material element and a substantial factor in bringing it about. [Citation omitted.] Edmark Motors, Inc. v. Twin Cities Toyota, Inc., 111 Idaho 846, 849 , 727 P.2d 1274, 1277 (Ct.App.1986) (quoting Challis Irrigation Co. v. State, 107 Idaho 338, 343 , 689 P.2d 230, 235 (Ct.App.1984)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Munson v. State, Department of Highways
green
2 sentences1990Munson v. State Department of Highways, 96 Idaho 529 , 531 P.2d 1174 (1975). *1143 Thus, a defendant's conduct is the cause in fact of an event only if it was a material element and a substantial factor in bringing it about. 1990Munson v. State Department of Highways, 96 Idaho 529 , 531 P.2d 1174 (1975). *1143 Thus, a defendant's conduct is the cause in fact of an event only if it was a material element and a substantial factor in bringing it about. | 3 | 1984–1990 |
Jones v. Healthsouth Treasure Valley Hospital
green
2 sentences2016The second element of the doctrine of apparent authority is “acceptance of the agent’s service by one who reasonably believes it is rendered on behalf of the principal.” Id. 2016The second element of the doctrine of apparent authority is “acceptance of the agent’s service by one who reasonably believes it is rendered on behalf of the principal.” Id. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Saenz
green
2 sentences2021This Court recently addressed the proof necessary to satisfy the second element of this analysis in State v. Saenz, 167 Idaho 443 , 470 P.3d 1252 (Ct. App. 2020). 2021This Court recently addressed the proof necessary to satisfy the second element of this analysis in State v. Saenz, 167 Idaho 443 , 470 P.3d 1252 (Ct. App. 2020). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Sanchez v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board
green
2 sentences1979Thus, a second element of the inquiry into availability consists of the determination whether, after a claimant has restricted his market to `suitable work which he has no good cause for refusing,' he remains available for work for which there is a substantial field of potential employers." (Citations omitted) 141 Cal. Rptr. at 152-153 , 569 P.2d at 746-47. 1979Thus, a second element of the inquiry into availability consists of the determination whether, after a claimant has restricted his market to ‘suitable work which he has no good cause for refusing,’ he remains available for work for which there is a substantial field of potential employers.” (Citations omitted) 141 Cal.Rptr. at 152-153 , 569 P.2d at 746-47 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Corthell v. Pearson
green
1 sentence1966C. §§ 25-2118 and 25-2119; Corthell v. Pearson, supra; but he did not come forth with any explanation, other than the fact that he had no knowledge of the removal of the cattle guard and the presence of the animal on the highway at said time and place. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.