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.
12 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Candace Elliott v. Steve Murdockgreen2 sentences2023We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Respondents on Davis’s claim for defamation per se. “[T]o succeed on a defamation claim, a plaintiff is required to prove ‘that the defendant: (1) communicated information concerning the plaintiff to others; (2) that the information was defamatory; and (3) that the plaintiff was damaged because of the communication.’” Siercke v. Siercke, 167 Idaho 709, 718 , 476 P.3d 376, 385 (2020) (quoting Elliott v. Murdock, 161 Idaho 281, 287 , 385 P.3d 459, 465 (2016)). 2023We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Respondents on Davis’s claim for defamation per se. “[T]o succeed on a defamation claim, a plaintiff is required to prove ‘that the defendant: (1) communicated information concerning the plaintiff to others; (2) that the information was defamatory; and (3) that the plaintiff was damaged because of the communication.’” Siercke v. Siercke, 167 Idaho 709, 718 , 476 P.3d 376, 385 (2020) (quoting Elliott v. Murdock, 161 Idaho 281, 287 , 385 P.3d 459, 465 (2016)). | 5 | 5 |
Clark v. Spokesman-Reviewgreen2 sentences2026“To prevail on a defamation claim in Idaho, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant: (1) communicated information concerning the plaintiff to others; (2) the information was defamatory; and (3) the plaintiff was damaged because of the communication.” Verity, 164 Idaho at 841 , 436 P.3d at 662 (citing Clark v. Spokesman-Review, 144 Idaho 427, 430 , 163 P.3d 216, 219 (2007)). 2026“To prevail on a defamation claim in Idaho, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant: (1) communicated information concerning the plaintiff to others; (2) the information was defamatory; and (3) the plaintiff was damaged because of the communication.” Verity, 164 Idaho at 841 , 436 P.3d at 662 (citing Clark v. Spokesman-Review, 144 Idaho 427, 430 , 163 P.3d 216, 219 (2007)). | 3 | 4 |
Richeson v. Kesslergreen2 sentences2020Richeson v. Kessler, 73 Idaho 548, 551 , 255 P.2d 707, 709 (1953); Malmin v. Engler, 124 10 There is an additional element to a defamation claim—actual malice—if the plaintiff is a public figure. 2020Richeson v. Kessler, 73 Idaho 548, 551 , 255 P.2d 707, 709 (1953); Malmin v. Engler, 124 10 There is an additional element to a defamation claim—actual malice—if the plaintiff is a public figure. | 2 | 2 |
New York Times Co. v. Sullivangreen2 sentences2020See Elliott, 161 Idaho at 287 , 385 P.3d at 465 (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)). 2020See Elliott, 161 Idaho at 287 , 385 P.3d at 465 (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)). | 2 | 2 |
Malmin v. Englergreen2 sentences2020It appears that the parties assumed that the plaintiff was a private plaintiff and therefore malice was not an element of a defamation claim. 9 Idaho 733, 737 , 864 P.2d 179, 183 (Ct. App. 1993). 2020It appears that the parties assumed that the plaintiff was a private plaintiff and therefore malice was not an element of a defamation claim. 9 Idaho 733, 737 , 864 P.2d 179, 183 (Ct. App. 1993). | 2 | 2 |
Siercke v. Sierckegreen2 sentences2023We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Respondents on Davis’s claim for defamation per se. “[T]o succeed on a defamation claim, a plaintiff is required to prove ‘that the defendant: (1) communicated information concerning the plaintiff to others; (2) that the information was defamatory; and (3) that the plaintiff was damaged because of the communication.’” Siercke v. Siercke, 167 Idaho 709, 718 , 476 P.3d 376, 385 (2020) (quoting Elliott v. Murdock, 161 Idaho 281, 287 , 385 P.3d 459, 465 (2016)). 2023We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Respondents on Davis’s claim for defamation per se. “[T]o succeed on a defamation claim, a plaintiff is required to prove ‘that the defendant: (1) communicated information concerning the plaintiff to others; (2) that the information was defamatory; and (3) that the plaintiff was damaged because of the communication.’” Siercke v. Siercke, 167 Idaho 709, 718 , 476 P.3d 376, 385 (2020) (quoting Elliott v. Murdock, 161 Idaho 281, 287 , 385 P.3d 459, 465 (2016)). | 1 | 1 |
Barlow v. International Harvester Companyyellow1 sentence2020See id. (determining that a jury had sufficient evidence to conclude that publication of defamatory material was done with malice and thus could consider whether allegations of criminal conduct were defamatory per se). | 1 | 1 |
Bennett v. Blissgreen2 sentences1992See Bennett v. Bliss, 103 Idaho 358, 360 , 647 P.2d 814, 816 (Ct.App.1982). 3 We conclude that the district court’s reasoning was sound and we will not overturn the dismissal of the defamation claim and the claim of fraud upon the court. 1992See Bennett v. Bliss, 103 Idaho 358, 360 , 647 P.2d 814, 816 (Ct.App.1982). 3 We conclude that the district court’s reasoning was sound and we will not overturn the dismissal of the defamation claim and the claim of fraud upon the court. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Verity v. USA TODAY
green
2 sentences2026“To prevail on a defamation claim in Idaho, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant: (1) communicated information concerning the plaintiff to others; (2) the information was defamatory; and (3) the plaintiff was damaged because of the communication.” Verity, 164 Idaho at 841 , 436 P.3d at 662 (citing Clark v. Spokesman-Review, 144 Idaho 427, 430 , 163 P.3d 216, 219 (2007)). 2026“To prevail on a defamation claim in Idaho, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant: (1) communicated information concerning the plaintiff to others; (2) the information was defamatory; and (3) the plaintiff was damaged because of the communication.” Verity, 164 Idaho at 841 , 436 P.3d at 662 (citing Clark v. Spokesman-Review, 144 Idaho 427, 430 , 163 P.3d 216, 219 (2007)). | 2 | 2026–2026 |
MacLeod v. Stelle
green
2 sentences2024Second, and more importantly, section 11-203 is inapplicable here because we have already held, supra, that a defamation claim is not assignable because it is “personal in nature.” MacLeod, 43 Idaho at 74 , 249 P. at 257 . 2024Second, and more importantly, section 11-203 is inapplicable here because we have already held, supra, that a defamation claim is not assignable because it is “personal in nature.” MacLeod, 43 Idaho at 74 , 249 P. at 257 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Wing v. Martin
green
2 sentences1992Black Canyon, supra; Wing v. Martin, 107 Idaho 267 , 688 P.2d 1172 (1984). 1992Black Canyon, supra; Wing v. Martin, 107 Idaho 267 , 688 P.2d 1172 (1984). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.