10 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Robert V. De Shazo & Associates v. Farm Management Services, Inc.green2 sentences2020De Shazo & Associates v. Farm Management Services, Inc., 101 Idaho 154, 155 , 610 P.2d 109, 110 (1980) (per curiam), for the proposition that if the instruction given was “a correct statement of the law, as far as it goes, a party cannot 10 Apparently, Smith was referring to Smith v. Mitton, 140 Idaho 893 , 105 P.3d 367 (2004). 2020De Shazo & Associates v. Farm Management Services, Inc., 101 Idaho 154, 155 , 610 P.2d 109, 110 (1980) (per curiam), for the proposition that if the instruction given was “a correct statement of the law, as far as it goes, a party cannot 10 Apparently, Smith was referring to Smith v. Mitton, 140 Idaho 893 , 105 P.3d 367 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
Evans v. Twin Falls Countygreen2 sentences2010Liberty Mutual requested as its supplemental jury instruction No. 9 an additional instruction stating, “A defendant is liable for emotional distress only where the distress inflicted is so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.” The proposed jury instruction comes from comment j to Section 46 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965), which this Court quoted in Evans v. Twin Falls County, 118 Idaho 210, 220 , 796 P.2d 87, 97 (1990). 2010Liberty Mutual requested as its supplemental jury instruction No. 9 an additional instruction stating, “A defendant is liable for emotional distress only where the distress inflicted is so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.” The proposed jury instruction comes from comment j to Section 46 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965), which this Court quoted in Evans v. Twin Falls County, 118 Idaho 210, 220 , 796 P.2d 87, 97 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
Burgess v. Salmon River Canal Co., Ltd.green2 sentences2004“This Court has long adhered to the rule that when the instructions *341 given by the trial court are correct insofar as they go, one cannot complain of the failure to give additional instructions if none were requested.” Burgess v. Salmon River Canal Co., Ltd., 127 Idaho 565, 572, 903 P.2d 730, 737 (1995). 2004“This Court has long adhered to the rule that when the instructions *341 given by the trial court are correct insofar as they go, one cannot complain of the failure to give additional instructions if none were requested.” Burgess v. Salmon River Canal Co., Ltd., 127 Idaho 565, 572, 903 P.2d 730, 737 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
Lankford v. Nicholson Manufacturing Co.green2 sentences1999Co., 126 Idaho 187, 189 , 879 P.2d 1120, 1122 (1994). 1999Co., 126 Idaho 187, 189 , 879 P.2d 1120, 1122 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Aragongreen2 sentences1995State v. Eastman, 122 Idaho 87, 89 , 831 P.2d 555, 557 (1992); State v. Aragon, 107 Idaho 358, 363 , 690 P.2d 293, 298 (1984). 1995State v. Eastman, 122 Idaho 87, 89 , 831 P.2d 555, 557 (1992); State v. Aragon, 107 Idaho 358, 363 , 690 P.2d 293, 298 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Eastmangreen2 sentences1995State v. Eastman, 122 Idaho 87, 89 , 831 P.2d 555, 557 (1992); State v. Aragon, 107 Idaho 358, 363 , 690 P.2d 293, 298 (1984). 1995State v. Eastman, 122 Idaho 87, 89 , 831 P.2d 555, 557 (1992); State v. Aragon, 107 Idaho 358, 363 , 690 P.2d 293, 298 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Blake
green
2 sentences2023“The purpose of the invited error doctrine is to prevent a party who caused or played an important role in prompting a trial court to give or not give an instruction from later challenging that decision on appeal.” Blake, 133 Idaho at 240 , 985 P.2d at 120 . 2023“The purpose of the invited error doctrine is to prevent a party who caused or played an important role in prompting a trial court to give or not give an instruction from later challenging that decision on appeal.” Blake, 133 Idaho at 240 , 985 P.2d at 120 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Bryann Kristine Lemmons
green
1 sentence2021Id. 2 III. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Smith v. Mitton
green
1 sentence2020De Shazo & Associates v. Farm Management Services, Inc., 101 Idaho 154, 155 , 610 P.2d 109, 110 (1980) (per curiam), for the proposition that if the instruction given was “a correct statement of the law, as far as it goes, a party cannot 10 Apparently, Smith was referring to Smith v. Mitton, 140 Idaho 893 , 105 P.3d 367 (2004). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Brady v. United States
green
2 sentences2016As the United States Supreme Court stated in Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970), “Central to the plea and the foundation for 1 The district court’s proposed jury instruction is not in the record. 2016As the United States Supreme Court stated in Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 , 90 S.Ct. 1463 , 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970), “Central to the plea and the foundation for entering judgment against the defendant is the defendant’s admission in open court that he committed the acts charged in the indictment.” Id. at 748 , 90 S.Ct. at 1468-69 , 25 L.Ed.2d at 757 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Staples v. United States
green
1 sentence2013The Defendant argued that the jury should not be instructed that IDAPA 13.01.08255 stands alone as the state of Idaho law without instructing them “that the Department of Fish and Game’s Idaho Big Game Seasons and Rules 2010, consistent with Idaho Code § 36 - 105(3)(c), ‘shall be text of the [Department of Fish and Game’s] proclamation’ to hunters.” The Defendant also argued that pursuant to the same statute, the magistrate court and the jury “‘shall’ take judicial notice of the ‘proclamation, pamphlet, or brochure.’” The Defendant’s argument for his Motion to Reconsider requested the magistra | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1997Miller cites State v. Johnson, 126 Idaho 892 , 894 P.2d 125 (1995), as authority suggesting that the same standard used for appellate review of a trial court’s exercise of discretion should be applied when considering jury instruction issues. 1997Miller cites State v. Johnson, 126 Idaho 892 , 894 P.2d 125 (1995), as authority suggesting that the same standard used for appellate review of a trial court’s exercise of discretion should be applied when considering jury instruction issues. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.