10 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hackett v. Streetergreen2 sentences2020Because the trial court is required to consider these enumerated factors, “it is incumbent upon a party seeking attorney fees to present sufficient information for the court to consider the factors as they specifically relate to the prevailing party.” Sun Valley Potato Growers, Inc. v. Texas Refinery Corp., 139 Idaho 761, 769 , 86 P.3d 475, 483 (2004) (quoting Hackett v. Streeter, 109 Idaho 261, 264 , 706 P.2d 1372, 1375 (Ct. App. 1985)) (italics omitted). 2020Because the trial court is required to consider these enumerated factors, “it is incumbent upon a party seeking attorney fees to present sufficient information for the court to consider the factors as they specifically relate to the prevailing party.” Sun Valley Potato Growers, Inc. v. Texas Refinery Corp., 139 Idaho 761, 769 , 86 P.3d 475, 483 (2004) (quoting Hackett v. Streeter, 109 Idaho 261, 264 , 706 P.2d 1372, 1375 (Ct. App. 1985)) (italics omitted). | 3 | 6 |
Sun Valley Potato Growers, Inc. v. Texas Refinery Corp.green2 sentences2025The Dotsons and Williamses rely on Sun Valley Potato Growers, Inc. v. Tex. Refinery Corp., 139 Idaho 761, 769 , 86 P.3d 475, 483 (2004), where the Idaho Supreme Court held that it is “incumbent upon a party seeking attorney fees to present sufficient information for the court to consider factors as they specifically relate to the prevailing party or parties seeking fees.” The Idaho Supreme Court held that the district court erred in awarding attorney fees to the prevailing party because it exercised its right to claim privilege by refusing to submit timesheets. 2025The Dotsons and Williamses rely on Sun Valley Potato Growers, Inc. v. Tex. Refinery Corp., 139 Idaho 761, 769 , 86 P.3d 475, 483 (2004), where the Idaho Supreme Court held that it is “incumbent upon a party seeking attorney fees to present sufficient information for the court to consider factors as they specifically relate to the prevailing party or parties seeking fees.” The Idaho Supreme Court held that the district court erred in awarding attorney fees to the prevailing party because it exercised its right to claim privilege by refusing to submit timesheets. | 2 | 2 |
Jensen v. Jensengreen2 sentences2016Jensen v. Jensen, 128 Idaho 600, 606 , 917 P.2d 757, 763 (1996). 2016Jensen v. Jensen, 128 Idaho 600, 606 , 917 P.2d 757, 763 (1996). | 2 | 2 |
Murphy v. Stategreen2 sentences2015As this Court concluded in Murphy v. State, 143 Idaho 139, 149 , 139 P.3d 741, 751 (Ct. App. 2006), a discovery motion may need to be granted to protect a petitioner’s substantial right to effective assistance. 2015As this Court concluded in Murphy v. State, 143 Idaho 139, 149 , 139 P.3d 741, 751 (Ct. App. 2006), a discovery motion may need to be granted to protect a petitioner’s substantial right to effective assistance. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.