10 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1894–1994 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Russ Ballard & Family Achievement Institute v. Lava Hot Springs Resort, Inc.green2 sentences1987This Court's decision in Lynch v. Cheney, 98 Idaho 238, 243 , 561 P.2d 380, 385 (1977), summarized the requirement as follows: *1308 "While this Court has not previously addressed the question of what standard of proof is necessary to prove a claim of oral compromise of a judgment, we have required a clear and convincing, or a clear and satisfactory standard of proof in analogous circumstances such as the oral modification of a written contract, Prairie Development Co., Ltd. v. Leiberg, 15 Idaho 379 , 98 P. 616 (1909) (`clear and satisfactory'), and an oral claim of ownership of real property 1987This Court's decision in Lynch v. Cheney, 98 Idaho 238, 243 , 561 P.2d 380, 385 (1977), summarized the requirement as follows: *1308 "While this Court has not previously addressed the question of what standard of proof is necessary to prove a claim of oral compromise of a judgment, we have required a clear and convincing, or a clear and satisfactory standard of proof in analogous circumstances such as the oral modification of a written contract, Prairie Development Co., Ltd. v. Leiberg, 15 Idaho 379 , 98 P. 616 (1909) (`clear and satisfactory'), and an oral claim of ownership of real property | 1 | 2 |
Prairie Development Co. v. Leiberggreen2 sentences1987This Court's decision in Lynch v. Cheney, 98 Idaho 238, 243 , 561 P.2d 380, 385 (1977), summarized the requirement as follows: *1308 "While this Court has not previously addressed the question of what standard of proof is necessary to prove a claim of oral compromise of a judgment, we have required a clear and convincing, or a clear and satisfactory standard of proof in analogous circumstances such as the oral modification of a written contract, Prairie Development Co., Ltd. v. Leiberg, 15 Idaho 379 , 98 P. 616 (1909) (`clear and satisfactory'), and an oral claim of ownership of real property 1987This Court's decision in Lynch v. Cheney, 98 Idaho 238, 243 , 561 P.2d 380, 385 (1977), summarized the requirement as follows: *1308 "While this Court has not previously addressed the question of what standard of proof is necessary to prove a claim of oral compromise of a judgment, we have required a clear and convincing, or a clear and satisfactory standard of proof in analogous circumstances such as the oral modification of a written contract, Prairie Development Co., Ltd. v. Leiberg, 15 Idaho 379 , 98 P. 616 (1909) (`clear and satisfactory'), and an oral claim of ownership of real property | 1 | 2 |
White v. Boydstungreen2 sentences1992In White v. Boydstun, 91 Idaho 615, 621 , 428 P.2d 747, 753 (1967), the Court said: A claimant who seeks to establish ownership by adverse possession without an instrument of title must show that during a minimum period of five years [the claimant] has occupied the claimed land under an asserted right, manifesting this claim and occupation by causing the land to be “protected by a substantial enclosure” or “usually cultivated or improved.” I.C. § 5-210. 1992In White v. Boydstun, 91 Idaho 615, 621 , 428 P.2d 747, 753 (1967), the Court said: A claimant who seeks to establish ownership by adverse possession without an instrument of title must show that during a minimum period of five years [the claimant] has occupied the claimed land under an asserted right, manifesting this claim and occupation by causing the land to be “protected by a substantial enclosure” or “usually cultivated or improved.” I.C. § 5-210. | 1 | 1 |
Shelton v. Boydstun Beach Ass'ngreen2 sentences1991Shelton v. Boydstun Beach Ass’n, 102 Idaho 818, 819 , 641 P.2d 1005, 1006 (Ct.App.1982). 1991Shelton v. Boydstun Beach Ass’n, 102 Idaho 818, 819 , 641 P.2d 1005, 1006 (Ct.App.1982). | 1 | 1 |
Lynch v. Cheneygreen2 sentences1987This Court's decision in Lynch v. Cheney, 98 Idaho 238, 243 , 561 P.2d 380, 385 (1977), summarized the requirement as follows: *1308 "While this Court has not previously addressed the question of what standard of proof is necessary to prove a claim of oral compromise of a judgment, we have required a clear and convincing, or a clear and satisfactory standard of proof in analogous circumstances such as the oral modification of a written contract, Prairie Development Co., Ltd. v. Leiberg, 15 Idaho 379 , 98 P. 616 (1909) (`clear and satisfactory'), and an oral claim of ownership of real property 1987This Court's decision in Lynch v. Cheney, 98 Idaho 238, 243 , 561 P.2d 380, 385 (1977), summarized the requirement as follows: *1308 "While this Court has not previously addressed the question of what standard of proof is necessary to prove a claim of oral compromise of a judgment, we have required a clear and convincing, or a clear and satisfactory standard of proof in analogous circumstances such as the oral modification of a written contract, Prairie Development Co., Ltd. v. Leiberg, 15 Idaho 379 , 98 P. 616 (1909) (`clear and satisfactory'), and an oral claim of ownership of real property | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Howard v. Graybehl
neutral
2 sentences1987The only case directly in point which the combined research of the Court and counsel was able to discover is Howard v. Graybehl, 16 Colo. App. 80 , 63 P. 953 (1901), a suit to enforce a money judgment in which the judgment debtor's defense that the parties had orally agreed to a compromise of the claim was rejected by the Colorado Court of Appeals. 1987The only case directly in point which the combined research of the Court and counsel was able to discover is Howard v. Graybehl, 16 Colo. App. 80 , 63 P. 953 (1901), a suit to enforce a money judgment in which the judgment debtor’s defense that the parties had orally agreed to a compromise of the claim was rejected by the Colorado Court of Appeals. | 2 | 1977–1987 |
Sysco Intermountain Food Service v. City of Twin Falls
neutral
2 sentences1994The discussion in Sysco that an oral claim to a governmental entity’s insurer is sufficient if the insurer receives, investigates, and denies that claim, Sysco, 109 Idaho at 91 , 705 P.2d at 551 , was not necessary to this Court’s decision in Pounds . 1994The discussion in Sysco that an oral claim to a governmental entity’s insurer is sufficient if the insurer receives, investigates, and denies that claim, Sysco, 109 Idaho at 91 , 705 P.2d at 551 , was not necessary to this Court’s decision in Pounds . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Cluff v. Bonner County
green
2 sentences1992In Cluff v. Bonner County, 121 Idaho 184 , 824 P.2d 115 (1992), this Court restated the principles concerning adverse possession under an oral claim or right. 1992In Cluff v. Bonner County, 121 Idaho 184 , 824 P.2d 115 (1992), this Court restated the principles concerning adverse possession under an oral claim or right. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Pleasants v. Henry
green
2 sentences1982I.C. §§ 5-209, -210. *820 E.g., Swanson v. State, 83 Idaho 126 , 358 P.2d 387 (1961); Pleasants v. Henry, 36 Idaho 728 , 213 P. 565 (1923). 1982I.C. §§ 5-209, -210. *820 E.g., Swanson v. State, 83 Idaho 126 , 358 P.2d 387 (1961); Pleasants v. Henry, 36 Idaho 728 , 213 P. 565 (1923). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Swanson v. State
green
2 sentences1982I.C. §§ 5-209, -210. *820 E.g., Swanson v. State, 83 Idaho 126 , 358 P.2d 387 (1961); Pleasants v. Henry, 36 Idaho 728 , 213 P. 565 (1923). 1982I.C. §§ 5-209, -210. *820 E.g., Swanson v. State, 83 Idaho 126 , 358 P.2d 387 (1961); Pleasants v. Henry, 36 Idaho 728 , 213 P. 565 (1923). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Perkins v. Robertson
green
2 sentences1966Plaintiff also contends the oral instruction was erroneous in implying that plaintiff could have brought action against his father, the driver of the car, and cites authority for the proposition that an unemancipated minor cannot maintain an action against his parent on a cause arising out of simple negligence, to wit: DeLay v. DeLay, 54 Wash.2d 63 , 337 P.2d 1057 (1959); Perkins v. Robertson, 140 Cal.App.2d 536 , 295 P.2d 972 (1956); 19 A.L.R.2d Anno. § 11, p. 442, 19 A.L.R.2d Later Case Service § 11, p. 37. 1966Plaintiff also contends the oral instruction was erroneous in implying that plaintiff could have brought action against his father, the driver of the car, and cites authority for the proposition that an unemancipated minor cannot maintain an action against his parent on a cause arising out of simple negligence, to wit: DeLay v. DeLay, 54 Wash.2d 63 , 337 P.2d 1057 (1959); Perkins v. Robertson, 140 Cal.App.2d 536 , 295 P.2d 972 (1956); 19 A.L.R.2d Anno. § 11, p. 442, 19 A.L.R.2d Later Case Service § 11, p. 37. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
DeLay v. DeLay
green
2 sentences1966Plaintiff also contends the oral instruction was erroneous in implying that plaintiff could have brought action against his father, the driver of the car, and cites authority for the proposition that an unemancipated minor cannot maintain an action against his parent on a cause arising out of simple negligence, to wit: DeLay v. DeLay, 54 Wash.2d 63 , 337 P.2d 1057 (1959); Perkins v. Robertson, 140 Cal.App.2d 536 , 295 P.2d 972 (1956); 19 A.L.R.2d Anno. § 11, p. 442, 19 A.L.R.2d Later Case Service § 11, p. 37. 1966Plaintiff also contends the oral instruction was erroneous in implying that plaintiff could have brought action against his father, the driver of the car, and cites authority for the proposition that an unemancipated minor cannot maintain an action against his parent on a cause arising out of simple negligence, to wit: DeLay v. DeLay, 54 Wash.2d 63 , 337 P.2d 1057 (1959); Perkins v. Robertson, 140 Cal.App.2d 536 , 295 P.2d 972 (1956); 19 A.L.R.2d Anno. § 11, p. 442, 19 A.L.R.2d Later Case Service § 11, p. 37. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Kammrath v. Kidd
green
2 sentences1951“And while there are some authorities holding that an oral exception or reservation of the crop is effective in such a case, the weight of authority as well as the better reasoning are to the effect that, where a writing is essential to the transfer of real property, such a reservation cannot be established by parol to impair the effect of the writing purporting to convey the land without reservation.” See also, Sweet v. Watson’s Nursery, 33 Cal.App.2d 699 , 92 P.2d 812 ; People v. List, 42 Cal.App.2d 505 , 109 P.2d 376 ; Silveira v. Ohm, Cal.App., 189 P.2d 782 , Id., 33 Cal .2d 272, 201 P.2d 1951“And while there are some authorities holding that an oral exception or reservation of the crop is effective in such a case, the weight of authority as well as the better reasoning are to the effect that, where a writing is essential to the transfer of real property, such a reservation cannot be established by parol to impair the effect of the writing purporting to convey the land without reservation.” See also, Sweet v. Watson’s Nursery, 33 Cal.App.2d 699 , 92 P.2d 812 ; People v. List, 42 Cal.App.2d 505 , 109 P.2d 376 ; Silveira v. Ohm, Cal.App., 189 P.2d 782 , Id., 33 Cal .2d 272, 201 P.2d | 1 | 1951–1951 |
List v. Sandell
green
2 sentences1951“And while there are some authorities holding that an oral exception or reservation of the crop is effective in such a case, the weight of authority as well as the better reasoning are to the effect that, where a writing is essential to the transfer of real property, such a reservation cannot be established by parol to impair the effect of the writing purporting to convey the land without reservation.” See also, Sweet v. Watson’s Nursery, 33 Cal.App.2d 699 , 92 P.2d 812 ; People v. List, 42 Cal.App.2d 505 , 109 P.2d 376 ; Silveira v. Ohm, Cal.App., 189 P.2d 782 , Id., 33 Cal .2d 272, 201 P.2d 1951“And while there are some authorities holding that an oral exception or reservation of the crop is effective in such a case, the weight of authority as well as the better reasoning are to the effect that, where a writing is essential to the transfer of real property, such a reservation cannot be established by parol to impair the effect of the writing purporting to convey the land without reservation.” See also, Sweet v. Watson’s Nursery, 33 Cal.App.2d 699 , 92 P.2d 812 ; People v. List, 42 Cal.App.2d 505 , 109 P.2d 376 ; Silveira v. Ohm, Cal.App., 189 P.2d 782 , Id., 33 Cal .2d 272, 201 P.2d | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Silveira v. Ohm
green
2 sentences1951“And while there are some authorities holding that an oral exception or reservation of the crop is effective in such a case, the weight of authority as well as the better reasoning are to the effect that, where a writing is essential to the transfer of real property, such a reservation cannot be established by parol to impair the effect of the writing purporting to convey the land without reservation.” See also, Sweet v. Watson’s Nursery, 33 Cal.App.2d 699 , 92 P.2d 812 ; People v. List, 42 Cal.App.2d 505 , 109 P.2d 376 ; Silveira v. Ohm, Cal.App., 189 P.2d 782 , Id., 33 Cal .2d 272, 201 P.2d 1951“And while there are some authorities holding that an oral exception or reservation of the crop is effective in such a case, the weight of authority as well as the better reasoning are to the effect that, where a writing is essential to the transfer of real property, such a reservation cannot be established by parol to impair the effect of the writing purporting to convey the land without reservation.” See also, Sweet v. Watson’s Nursery, 33 Cal.App.2d 699 , 92 P.2d 812 ; People v. List, 42 Cal.App.2d 505 , 109 P.2d 376 ; Silveira v. Ohm, Cal.App., 189 P.2d 782 , Id., 33 Cal .2d 272, 201 P.2d | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Sweet v. Watson's Nursery
green
2 sentences1951“And while there are some authorities holding that an oral exception or reservation of the crop is effective in such a case, the weight of authority as well as the better reasoning are to the effect that, where a writing is essential to the transfer of real property, such a reservation cannot be established by parol to impair the effect of the writing purporting to convey the land without reservation.” See also, Sweet v. Watson’s Nursery, 33 Cal.App.2d 699 , 92 P.2d 812 ; People v. List, 42 Cal.App.2d 505 , 109 P.2d 376 ; Silveira v. Ohm, Cal.App., 189 P.2d 782 , Id., 33 Cal .2d 272, 201 P.2d 1951“And while there are some authorities holding that an oral exception or reservation of the crop is effective in such a case, the weight of authority as well as the better reasoning are to the effect that, where a writing is essential to the transfer of real property, such a reservation cannot be established by parol to impair the effect of the writing purporting to convey the land without reservation.” See also, Sweet v. Watson’s Nursery, 33 Cal.App.2d 699 , 92 P.2d 812 ; People v. List, 42 Cal.App.2d 505 , 109 P.2d 376 ; Silveira v. Ohm, Cal.App., 189 P.2d 782 , Id., 33 Cal .2d 272, 201 P.2d | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Mitchell v. Martindill
green
2 sentences1951“And while there are some authorities holding that an oral exception or reservation of the crop is effective in such a case, the weight of authority as well as the better reasoning are to the effect that, where a writing is essential to the transfer of real property, such a reservation cannot be established by parol to impair the effect of the writing purporting to convey the land without reservation.” See also, Sweet v. Watson’s Nursery, 33 Cal.App.2d 699 , 92 P.2d 812 ; People v. List, 42 Cal.App.2d 505 , 109 P.2d 376 ; Silveira v. Ohm, Cal.App., 189 P.2d 782 , Id., 33 Cal .2d 272, 201 P.2d 1951“And while there are some authorities holding that an oral exception or reservation of the crop is effective in such a case, the weight of authority as well as the better reasoning are to the effect that, where a writing is essential to the transfer of real property, such a reservation cannot be established by parol to impair the effect of the writing purporting to convey the land without reservation.” See also, Sweet v. Watson’s Nursery, 33 Cal.App.2d 699 , 92 P.2d 812 ; People v. List, 42 Cal.App.2d 505 , 109 P.2d 376 ; Silveira v. Ohm, Cal.App., 189 P.2d 782 , Id., 33 Cal .2d 272, 201 P.2d | 1 | 1951–1951 |
State v. Reed
neutral
2 sentences1894(State v. Reed, 3 Idaho, 754 , 35 Pac. 706 ; State v. Clark, ante, p. 7, 35 Pac. 710 .) The fourth error assigned is the giving of an oral instruction. 1894(State v. Reed, 3 Idaho, 754 , 35 Pac. 706 ; State v. Clark, ante, p. 7, 35 Pac. 710 .) The fourth error assigned is the giving of an oral instruction. | 1 | 1894–1894 |
State v. Clark
green
1 sentence1894(State v. Reed, 3 Idaho, 754 , 35 Pac. 706 ; State v. Clark, ante, p. 7, 35 Pac. 710 .) The fourth error assigned is the giving of an oral instruction. | 1 | 1894–1894 |
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.