10 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kootenai Environmental Alliance, Inc. v. Panhandle Yacht Club, Inc.green2 sentences1995Alliance, Inc. v. Panhandle Yacht Club, Inc., 105 Idaho 622 , 671 P.2d 1085 (1983), argue that the public trust doctrine requires that the district court consider the public trust as an element of each water right subject to the adjudication. 1995Alliance, Inc. v. Panhandle Yacht Club, Inc., 105 Idaho 622 , 671 P.2d 1085 (1983), argue that the public trust doctrine requires that the district court consider the public trust as an element of each water right subject to the adjudication. | 2 | 7 |
Callahan v. Pricegreen2 sentences2006Under that doctrine, "the state holds the title to the beds of navigable lakes and streams below the natural high-water mark for the use and benefit of the whole people." Callahan v. Price, 26 Idaho 745, 754 , 146 P. 732, 735 (1915). 2006Under that doctrine, "the state holds the title to the beds of navigable lakes and streams below the natural high-water mark for the use and benefit of the whole people." Callahan v. Price, 26 Idaho 745, 754 , 146 P. 732, 735 (1915). | 2 | 2 |
Idaho Forest Industries, Inc. v. Hayden Lake Watershed Improvement Districtgreen2 sentences2009Since the State of Idaho was not granted ownership of the beds of nonnavigable waters, United States v. Oregon, 295 U.S. 1, 28-29 , 55 S.Ct. 610, 621-22 , 79 L.Ed. 1267, 1281 (1935), the public trust doctrine does not apply to those waters, Idaho Forest Industries, Inc. v. Hayden Lake Watershed Improvement District, 112 Idaho 512, 516 , 733 P.2d 733, 737 (1987) (“it is clear that the public trust arises only in land below the natural high water mark of navigable waters”). 2009Since the State of Idaho was not granted ownership of the beds of nonnavigable waters, United States v. Oregon, 295 U.S. 1, 28-29 , 55 S.Ct. 610, 621-22 , 79 L.Ed. 1267, 1281 (1935), the public trust doctrine does not apply to those waters, Idaho Forest Industries, Inc. v. Hayden Lake Watershed Improvement District, 112 Idaho 512, 516 , 733 P.2d 733, 737 (1987) (“it is clear that the public trust arises only in land below the natural high water mark of navigable waters”). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Oregongreen2 sentences2009Since the State of Idaho was not granted ownership of the beds of nonnavigable waters, United States v. Oregon, 295 U.S. 1, 28-29 , 55 S.Ct. 610, 621-22 , 79 L.Ed. 1267, 1281 (1935), the public trust doctrine does not apply to those waters, Idaho Forest Industries, Inc. v. Hayden Lake Watershed Improvement District, 112 Idaho 512, 516 , 733 P.2d 733, 737 (1987) (“it is clear that the public trust arises only in land below the natural high water mark of navigable waters”). 2009Since the State of Idaho was not granted ownership of the beds of nonnavigable waters, United States v. Oregon, 295 U.S. 1, 28-29 , 55 S.Ct. 610, 621-22 , 79 L.Ed. 1267, 1281 (1935), the public trust doctrine does not apply to those waters, Idaho Forest Industries, Inc. v. Hayden Lake Watershed Improvement District, 112 Idaho 512, 516 , 733 P.2d 733, 737 (1987) (“it is clear that the public trust arises only in land below the natural high water mark of navigable waters”). | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Big Lost River Irrigation Districtgreen2 sentences1995XV, §§ 1, 3, 5, the Conservation Groups contend that the district court must consider the public trust doctrine in the SRBA The SRBA court “is, in effect, a separate division of the district court and exercises the unique jurisdiction given it by the legislature.” Walker v. Big Lost River Irrigation Dist., 124 Idaho 78, 81 , 856 P.2d 868, 871 (1993). 1995XV, §§ 1, 3, 5, the Conservation Groups contend that the district court must consider the public trust doctrine in the SRBA The SRBA court “is, in effect, a separate division of the district court and exercises the unique jurisdiction given it by the legislature.” Walker v. Big Lost River Irrigation Dist., 124 Idaho 78, 81 , 856 P.2d 868, 871 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Idaho Conservation League, Inc. v. State
green
2 sentences1997In Idaho Conservation League, Inc. v. Idaho, 128 Idaho 155 , 911 P.2d 748 (1995), the SRBA court had granted intervention by various conservation groups who argued that the public trust doctrine required the court to consider the public trust as an element of a water right. 1997In Idaho Conservation League, Inc. v. Idaho, 128 Idaho 155 , 911 P.2d 748 (1995), the SRBA court had granted intervention by various conservation groups who argued that the public trust doctrine required the court to consider the public trust as an element of a water right. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Southern Idaho Fish & Game Ass'n v. Picabo Livestock, Inc.
green
2 sentences1995Ass'n v. Picabo Livestock, Inc., 96 Idaho 360 , 528 P.2d 1295 (1974), was controlling: In Southern Idaho F. & G. 1995Ass'n v. Picabo Livestock, Inc., 96 Idaho 360 , 528 P.2d 1295 (1974), was controlling: In Southern Idaho F. & G. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1983Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 , 13 S.Ct. 110 , 36 L.Ed. 1018 (1892), is the seminal case on the scope of the public trust doctrine and remains the primary authority today. 1983Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 , 13 S.Ct. 110 , 36 L.Ed. 1018 (1892), is the seminal case on the scope of the public trust doctrine and remains the primary authority today. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
City of Berkeley v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1983The development of the public trust doctrine in California is discussed at length in City of Berkeley v. Superior Court of Alameda, 26 Cal.3d 515 , 162 Cal. Rptr. 327 , 606 P.2d 362 (1980). 1983The development of the public trust doctrine in California is discussed at length in City of Berkeley v. Superior Court of Alameda, 26 Cal.3d 515 , 162 Cal. Rptr. 327 , 606 P.2d 362 (1980). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
National Audubon Society v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1983In National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County, 33 Cal.3d 419 , 189 Cal. Rptr. 346 , 658 P.2d 709 (1983), the California court has provided a comprehensive statement of the current status of the public trust doctrine. 1983In National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County, 33 Cal.3d 419 , 189 Cal. Rptr. 346 , 658 P.2d 709 (1983), the California court has provided a comprehensive statement of the current status of the public trust doctrine. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
People v. California Fish Co.
green
2 sentences1983The California Approach People v. California Fish Co., 166 Cal. 576 , 138 P. 79 (1913), contains a comprehensive analysis of the public trust doctrine. 1983The California Approach People v. California Fish Co., 166 Cal. 576 , 138 P. 79 (1913), contains a comprehensive analysis of the public trust doctrine. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Priewe v. Wisconsin State Land & Improvement Co.
green
2 sentences1983The Wisconsin Approach The first case in Wisconsin to deal with the public trust doctrine was Priewe v. Wisconsin State Land and Improvement Co., 93 Wis. 534 , 67 N.W. 918 (1896). 1983The Wisconsin Approach The first case in Wisconsin to deal with the public trust doctrine was Priewe v. Wisconsin State Land and Improvement Co., 93 Wis. 534 , 67 N.W. 918 (1896). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.