10 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Taylor v. Sturgellgreen2 sentences2015Stilwyn argues that such conclusion rests on a misunderstanding concerning the doctrine of claim preclusion — that the doctrine applies to prevent a party who declined to assert any counterclaims in prior litigation from later asserting those claims in a separate action. 4 “The preclusive effect of a federal-court judgment is determined by federal common law.” Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 891 , 128 S.Ct. 2161, 2170-71 , 171 L.Ed.2d 155, 167 (2008). 2015Stilwyn argues that such conclusion rests on a misunderstanding concerning the doctrine of claim preclusion — that the doctrine applies to prevent a party who declined to assert any counterclaims in prior litigation from later asserting those claims in a separate action. 4 “The preclusive effect of a federal-court judgment is determined by federal common law.” Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 891 , 128 S.Ct. 2161, 2170-71 , 171 L.Ed.2d 155, 167 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Von Puckett v. City of Emmettgreen2 sentences2015See also Puckett v. City of Emmett, 113 Idaho 639, 642 , 747 P.2d 48, 51 (1987) (“Federal law determines the effects under the rules of res judicata of a judgment of a federal court.”) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 87 (1982)). 2015See also Puckett v. City of Emmett, 113 Idaho 639, 642 , 747 P.2d 48, 51 (1987) (“Federal law determines the effects under the rules of res judicata of a judgment of a federal court.”) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 87 (1982)). | 1 | 1 |
Farmers National Bank v. Shireygreen2 sentences2007Hindmarsh, 138 Idaho at 94 , 57 P.3d at 805 ; Farmers Nat’l Bank v. Shirey, 126 Idaho 63, 68 , 878 P.2d 762, 767 (1994). 2007Hindmarsh, 138 Idaho at 94 , 57 P.3d at 805 ; Farmers Nat’l Bank v. Shirey, 126 Idaho 63, 68 , 878 P.2d 762, 767 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Blackburn v. Olsongreen2 sentences1990Blackburn v. Olson, 69 Idaho 428, 433 , 207 P.2d 1160, 1163-64 (1949); Pence v. Idaho State Horse Racing Comm’n, 109 Idaho 112, 115 , 705 P.2d 1067, 1070 (Ct.App.1985). 1990Blackburn v. Olson, 69 Idaho 428, 433 , 207 P.2d 1160, 1163-64 (1949); Pence v. Idaho State Horse Racing Comm’n, 109 Idaho 112, 115 , 705 P.2d 1067, 1070 (Ct.App.1985). | 1 | 1 |
Pence v. Idaho State Horse Racing Commissiongreen2 sentences1990Blackburn v. Olson, 69 Idaho 428, 433 , 207 P.2d 1160, 1163-64 (1949); Pence v. Idaho State Horse Racing Comm’n, 109 Idaho 112, 115 , 705 P.2d 1067, 1070 (Ct.App.1985). 1990Blackburn v. Olson, 69 Idaho 428, 433 , 207 P.2d 1160, 1163-64 (1949); Pence v. Idaho State Horse Racing Comm’n, 109 Idaho 112, 115 , 705 P.2d 1067, 1070 (Ct.App.1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Berkshire Investments, LLC v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2025A claim preclusion defense has three elements: Under this doctrine, a claim is also precluded if it could have been brought in the previous action, regardless of whether it was actually brought, where: (1) the original action ended in final judgment on the merits, (2) the present claim involves the same parties as the original transaction, and (3) the present claim arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the original action. 6 Id. 2025A claim preclusion defense has three elements: Under this doctrine, a claim is also precluded if it could have been brought in the previous action, regardless of whether it was actually brought, where: (1) the original action ended in final judgment on the merits, (2) the present claim involves the same parties as the original transaction, and (3) the present claim arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the original action. 6 Id. | 4 | 2024–2025 |
Ticor Title Co. v. Stanion
green
2 sentences2023Instead, the district court found that the magistrate court “had the authority to determine each party’s interest in jointly owned separate property.” The district court determined that, since the magistrate court properly handled the tracing of separate and community contributions to the Island Park Properties, “Wright’s claim to a greater ownership interest [was] barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion[.]” To succeed on a theory of claim preclusion, a party must show three elements—“(1) same parties; (2) same claim; and (3) final judgment.” Ticor Title Co., 144 Idaho at 124 , 157 P.3d at 2023Instead, the district court found that the magistrate court “had the authority to determine each party’s interest in jointly owned separate property.” The district court determined that, since the magistrate court properly handled the tracing of separate and community contributions to the Island Park Properties, “Wright’s claim to a greater ownership interest [was] barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion[.]” To succeed on a theory of claim preclusion, a party must show three elements—“(1) same parties; (2) same claim; and (3) final judgment.” Ticor Title Co., 144 Idaho at 124 , 157 P.3d at | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Stoddard v. Hagadone Corp.
green
1 sentence2022Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Hindmarsh v. Mock
green
2 sentences2007Hindmarsh, 138 Idaho at 94 , 57 P.3d at 805 ; Farmers Nat’l Bank v. Shirey, 126 Idaho 63, 68 , 878 P.2d 762, 767 (1994). 2007Hindmarsh, 138 Idaho at 94 , 57 P.3d at 805 ; Farmers Nat’l Bank v. Shirey, 126 Idaho 63, 68 , 878 P.2d 762, 767 (1994). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Aldape v. Akins
green
2 sentences1985Moreover, as we recently noted in Aldape v. Akins, 105 Idaho 254 , 668 P.2d 130 (Ct.App.1983), the Joyce-Ramseyer version of res judicata is now known as the doctrine of claim preclusion. 1985Moreover, as we recently noted in Aldape v. Akins, 105 Idaho 254 , 668 P.2d 130 (Ct.App.1983), the Joyce-Ramseyer version of res judicata is now known as the doctrine of claim preclusion. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.