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 1973–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Scott v. Gublergreen2 sentences2011This Court returned to the tax payment requirement in Scott v. Gubler, 95 Idaho 441 , 511 P.2d 258 (1973). 2011This Court returned to the tax payment requirement in Scott v. Gubler, 95 Idaho 441 , 511 P.2d 258 (1973). | 6 | 8 |
Flynn v. Allisongreen2 sentences2011The adverse possessor’s payment of taxes on his actual acreage, payments which he reasonably believed covered the property he occupied, was sufficient to satisfy the tax payment requirement. 97 Idaho at 621 , 549 P.2d at 1068 . 2011The adverse possessor’s payment of taxes on his actual acreage, payments which he reasonably believed covered the property he occupied, was sufficient to satisfy the tax payment requirement. 97 Idaho at 621 , 549 P.2d at 1068 . | 2 | 4 |
Roark v. Bentleygreen2 sentences2004The lot number exception states: [I]n the case of boundary disputes between contiguous landowners, where one landowner can establish continuous open, notorious and hostile possession of an adjoining strip of his neighbor’s land, and taxes are assessed by lot number or by government survey designation, rather than by metes and bounds description, payment of taxes on the lot within which the disputed tract is enclosed satisfies the tax payment requirement of the ... statute.” Roark v. Bentley, 139 Idaho 793 , 86 P.3d 507 (2004) (citing Scott v. Gubler, 95 Idaho 441, 443-44 , 511 P.2d 258, 260-61 2004The lot number exception states: [I]n the case of boundary disputes between contiguous landowners, where one landowner can establish continuous open, notorious and hostile possession of an adjoining strip of his neighbor’s land, and taxes are assessed by lot number or by government survey designation, rather than by metes and bounds description, payment of taxes on the lot within which the disputed tract is enclosed satisfies the tax payment requirement of the ... statute.” Roark v. Bentley, 139 Idaho 793 , 86 P.3d 507 (2004) (citing Scott v. Gubler, 95 Idaho 441, 443-44 , 511 P.2d 258, 260-61 | 1 | 3 |
Wilson v. Gladishgreen2 sentences2011Under this rale, “the tax payment requirement will be satisfied if the adverse possessor occupies the same amount of land upon which he was taxed.” Wilson v. Gladish, 140 Idaho 861, 865-66 , 103 P.3d 474, 478-79 (2004) (citing White v. Boydstun, 91 Idaho 615 , 428 P.2d 747 (1967) and Flynn, 97 Idaho at 621 , 549 P.2d at 1068 ). 2011Under this rale, “the tax payment requirement will be satisfied if the adverse possessor occupies the same amount of land upon which he was taxed.” Wilson v. Gladish, 140 Idaho 861, 865-66 , 103 P.3d 474, 478-79 (2004) (citing White v. Boydstun, 91 Idaho 615 , 428 P.2d 747 (1967) and Flynn, 97 Idaho at 621 , 549 P.2d at 1068 ). | 1 | 1 |
DeChambeau v. Estate of Smithgreen1 sentence2005Indeed, when tax records are inconclusive, uncontradicted testimony that the adverse possessor paid taxes on the disputed property is sufficient to show compliance with the tax payment requirement, DeChambeau v. Estate of *273 Smith, 132 Idaho 568, 572, 976 P.2d 922, 926 (1999), and if both the record owner and adverse possessor pay taxes on the disputed property, the adverse possessor prevails. | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Estate of Bagleygreen2 sentences2004See Matter of Estate of Bagley, 117 Idaho 1091, 1093 , 793 P.2d 1263, 1265 (Ct.App.1990) (appellate court can affirm trial court’s decision on theory different from theory applied by that court). 2004See Matter of Estate of Bagley, 117 Idaho 1091, 1093 , 793 P.2d 1263, 1265 (Ct.App.1990) (appellate court can affirm trial court’s decision on theory different from theory applied by that court). | 1 | 1 |
Baxter v. Craneygreen2 sentences2004The reason behind the lot number exception is that “when taxes are assessed according to some generic description, ‘it is impossible to determine from the tax assessment record the precise quantum of property being assessed.’ ” Baxter v. Craney, 135 Idaho 166, 171 , 16 P.3d 263, 268 (2000) (citing Flynn v. Allison, 97 Idaho at 621, 549 P.2d at 1068 ). 2004The reason behind the lot number exception is that “when taxes are assessed according to some generic description, ‘it is impossible to determine from the tax assessment record the precise quantum of property being assessed.’ ” Baxter v. Craney, 135 Idaho 166, 171 , 16 P.3d 263, 268 (2000) (citing Flynn v. Allison, 97 Idaho at 621, 549 P.2d at 1068 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Trappett v. Davis
green
2 sentences2011As this Court warned in Trappett v. Davis, 102 Idaho 527 , 633 P.2d 592 (1981), though, “a good deal of the judicial gloss has evolved mechanically and without benefit of supporting rationale, a criticism which might well be leveled at the tax payment requirement itself.” Id. at 530 , 633 P.2d at 595 . 2011As this Court warned in Trappett v. Davis, 102 Idaho 527 , 633 P.2d 592 (1981), though, “a good deal of the judicial gloss has evolved mechanically and without benefit of supporting rationale, a criticism which might well be leveled at the tax payment requirement itself.” Id. at 530 , 633 P.2d at 595 . | 5 | 2000–2011 |
White v. Boydstun
green
2 sentences2011In White v. Boydstun, 91 Idaho 615 , 428 P.2d 747 (1967), the Court considered the tax payment requirement. 2011In White v. Boydstun, 91 Idaho 615 , 428 P.2d 747 (1967), the Court considered the tax payment requirement. | 3 | 2004–2011 |
Nasser v. Stahl
green
2 sentences1973That court has held that in the case of boundary disputes between contiguous landowners, where one landowner can establish continuous open, notorious and hostile possession of an adjoining strip of his neighbor’s land, and taxes are assessed by lot number or by government survey desig *444 nation, rather than by metes and bounds description, payment of taxes on the lot within which the disputed tract is enclosed satisfies the tax payment requirement of the Indiana statute. 3 Nasser v. Stahl, 126 Ind.App. 709 , 134 N.E.2d 567 (1956); Echterling v. Kalvaitis, 235 Ind. 141 , 126 N.E. 2d 573 (1955 1973That court has held that in the case of boundary disputes between contiguous landowners, where one landowner can establish continuous open, notorious and hostile possession of an adjoining strip of his neighbor’s land, and taxes are assessed by lot number or by government survey desig *444 nation, rather than by metes and bounds description, payment of taxes on the lot within which the disputed tract is enclosed satisfies the tax payment requirement of the Indiana statute. 3 Nasser v. Stahl, 126 Ind.App. 709 , 134 N.E.2d 567 (1956); Echterling v. Kalvaitis, 235 Ind. 141 , 126 N.E. 2d 573 (1955 | 3 | 1973–1979 |
Echterling Et Ux. v. Kalvaitis Et Ux.
green
2 sentences1973That court has held that in the case of boundary disputes between contiguous landowners, where one landowner can establish continuous open, notorious and hostile possession of an adjoining strip of his neighbor’s land, and taxes are assessed by lot number or by government survey desig *444 nation, rather than by metes and bounds description, payment of taxes on the lot within which the disputed tract is enclosed satisfies the tax payment requirement of the Indiana statute. 3 Nasser v. Stahl, 126 Ind.App. 709 , 134 N.E.2d 567 (1956); Echterling v. Kalvaitis, 235 Ind. 141 , 126 N.E. 2d 573 (1955 1973That court has held that in the case of boundary disputes between contiguous landowners, where one landowner can establish continuous open, notorious and hostile possession of an adjoining strip of his neighbor’s land, and taxes are assessed by lot number or by government survey desig *444 nation, rather than by metes and bounds description, payment of taxes on the lot within which the disputed tract is enclosed satisfies the tax payment requirement of the Indiana statute. 3 Nasser v. Stahl, 126 Ind.App. 709 , 134 N.E.2d 567 (1956); Echterling v. Kalvaitis, 235 Ind. 141 , 126 N.E. 2d 573 (1955 | 2 | 1973–1974 |
Swann v. Sweetwater Irrigation & Power Co.
green
2 sentences1981White v. Boydstun, supra; Hogan v. Blakney, 73 Idaho 274 , 251 P.2d 209 (1952); Swank v. Sweetwater Irr. & Power Co., Ltd., 15 Idaho 353 , 98 P. 297 (1908). 1981White v. Boydstun, supra; Hogan v. Blakney, 73 Idaho 274 , 251 P.2d 209 (1952); Swank v. Sweetwater Irr. & Power Co., Ltd., 15 Idaho 353 , 98 P. 297 (1908). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Hogan v. Blakney
green
2 sentences1981White v. Boydstun, supra; Hogan v. Blakney, 73 Idaho 274 , 251 P.2d 209 (1952); Swank v. Sweetwater Irr. & Power Co., Ltd., 15 Idaho 353 , 98 P. 297 (1908). 1981White v. Boydstun, supra; Hogan v. Blakney, 73 Idaho 274 , 251 P.2d 209 (1952); Swank v. Sweetwater Irr. & Power Co., Ltd., 15 Idaho 353 , 98 P. 297 (1908). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Standall v. Teater
green
2 sentences1981The following cases apply the lot number corollary in one form or another: Nesbitt v. Wolfkiel, 100 Idaho 396 , 598 P.2d 1046 (1979); Standall v. Teater, 96 Idaho 152 , 525 P.2d 347 (1974); Scott v. Gubler, supra; Beneficial Life Ins. 1981The following cases apply the lot number corollary in one form or another: Nesbitt v. Wolfkiel, 100 Idaho 396 , 598 P.2d 1046 (1979); Standall v. Teater, 96 Idaho 152 , 525 P.2d 347 (1974); Scott v. Gubler, supra; Beneficial Life Ins. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Nesbitt v. Wolfkiel
green
2 sentences1981The following cases apply the lot number corollary in one form or another: Nesbitt v. Wolfkiel, 100 Idaho 396 , 598 P.2d 1046 (1979); Standall v. Teater, 96 Idaho 152 , 525 P.2d 347 (1974); Scott v. Gubler, supra; Beneficial Life Ins. 1981The following cases apply the lot number corollary in one form or another: Nesbitt v. Wolfkiel, 100 Idaho 396 , 598 P.2d 1046 (1979); Standall v. Teater, 96 Idaho 152 , 525 P.2d 347 (1974); Scott v. Gubler, supra; Beneficial Life Ins. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Fry v. Smith
green
2 sentences1973Fry v. Smith, 91 Idaho 740 , 430 P.2d 486 (1967) involved a fence which had been erected as a matter of convenience, not to mark a boundary, and a tax assessment description which included more than merely the government lot designation of the property in question. 1973Fry v. Smith, 91 Idaho 740 , 430 P.2d 486 (1967) involved a fence which had been erected as a matter of convenience, not to mark a boundary, and a tax assessment description which included more than merely the government lot designation of the property in question. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Townsend v. Koukol
neutral
2 sentences1973E. g., Townsend v. Koukol, 148 Mont. 1 , 416 P.2d 532 (1966) ; Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church, 51 Cal.2d 702 , 336 P.2d 525 (1959). 1973E. g., Townsend v. Koukol, 148 Mont. 1 , 416 P.2d 532 (1966) ; Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church, 51 Cal.2d 702 , 336 P.2d 525 (1959). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church
green
2 sentences1973E. g., Townsend v. Koukol, 148 Mont. 1 , 416 P.2d 532 (1966) ; Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church, 51 Cal.2d 702 , 336 P.2d 525 (1959). 1973E. g., Townsend v. Koukol, 148 Mont. 1 , 416 P.2d 532 (1966) ; Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church, 51 Cal.2d 702 , 336 P.2d 525 (1959). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Mulder v. Stands
green
2 sentences1973In Calkins v. Kousouros, supra, 72 Idaho at 156 , 237 P.2d at 1057 , a case involving a boundary dispute between the owners of city lots, where the adverse claimant’s lot was assessed as “Tax No. 3” this Court stated: “ Where a fence constitutes a monument between tracts of conterminous owners and such monument establishes the boundary line between the adjoining premises, the requirement of the statute as to payment of taxes is satisfied by such payment on the lot within which the disputed tract is enclosed * * * ’ Mulder v. Stands [ 71 Idaho 22, 26 , 225 P.2d 463 (1950)].” The rigid applicati 1973In Calkins v. Kousouros, supra, 72 Idaho at 156 , 237 P.2d at 1057 , a case involving a boundary dispute between the owners of city lots, where the adverse claimant’s lot was assessed as “Tax No. 3” this Court stated: “ Where a fence constitutes a monument between tracts of conterminous owners and such monument establishes the boundary line between the adjoining premises, the requirement of the statute as to payment of taxes is satisfied by such payment on the lot within which the disputed tract is enclosed * * * ’ Mulder v. Stands [ 71 Idaho 22, 26 , 225 P.2d 463 (1950)].” The rigid applicati | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Calkins v. Kousouros
green
2 sentences1973In Calkins v. Kousouros, supra, 72 Idaho at 156 , 237 P.2d at 1057 , a case involving a boundary dispute between the owners of city lots, where the adverse claimant’s lot was assessed as “Tax No. 3” this Court stated: “ Where a fence constitutes a monument between tracts of conterminous owners and such monument establishes the boundary line between the adjoining premises, the requirement of the statute as to payment of taxes is satisfied by such payment on the lot within which the disputed tract is enclosed * * * ’ Mulder v. Stands [ 71 Idaho 22, 26 , 225 P.2d 463 (1950)].” The rigid applicati 1973In Calkins v. Kousouros, supra, 72 Idaho at 156 , 237 P.2d at 1057 , a case involving a boundary dispute between the owners of city lots, where the adverse claimant’s lot was assessed as “Tax No. 3” this Court stated: “ Where a fence constitutes a monument between tracts of conterminous owners and such monument establishes the boundary line between the adjoining premises, the requirement of the statute as to payment of taxes is satisfied by such payment on the lot within which the disputed tract is enclosed * * * ’ Mulder v. Stands [ 71 Idaho 22, 26 , 225 P.2d 463 (1950)].” The rigid applicati | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.