10 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Danforth v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2020See also Danforth v. United States, 308 U.S. 271, 284 (1939). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lindnergreen2 sentences2011State v. Lindner, 100 Idaho 37, 42 , 592 P.2d 852, 857 (1979). 2011State v. Lindner, 100 Idaho 37, 42 , 592 P.2d 852, 857 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
Key Transportation, Inc. v. Trans Magic Airlines Corp.green2 sentences1997In Key Transp., Inc. v. Trans Magic Airlines Corp., 96 Idaho 110, 112-113 , 524 P.2d 1338, 1340-41 (1974), this Court stated, “It is a well settled rule that in an appeal from the commission matters may not be raised for the first time on appeal and that where the objections were not raised in the petition for rehearing, they will not be considered by this court.” The rationale behind the rule is to afford IPUC the opportunity to rectify any mistake before presenting the issue to the Supreme Court. 1997In Key Transp., Inc. v. Trans Magic Airlines Corp., 96 Idaho 110, 112-113 , 524 P.2d 1338, 1340-41 (1974), this Court stated, “It is a well settled rule that in an appeal from the commission matters may not be raised for the first time on appeal and that where the objections were not raised in the petition for rehearing, they will not be considered by this court.” The rationale behind the rule is to afford IPUC the opportunity to rectify any mistake before presenting the issue to the Supreme 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 |
|---|---|---|
Eagle Water Co. v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission
green
2 sentences2025Utilities Comm’n, 130 Idaho 314 , 316–17, 940 P.2d 1133 , 1135– 36 (1997) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 2025Utilities Comm’n, 130 Idaho 314 , 316–17, 940 P.2d 1133 , 1135– 36 (1997) (internal quotations and citation omitted). | 3 | 2024–2025 |
South Fork Coalition v. Board of Commissioners
green
2 sentences2003The rationale behind the rule is “that to permit retroactive application of an ordinance would allow a zoning authority to change or enact a zoning law merely to defeat an application, which would result in giving immediate effect to a future or proposed zoning ordinance before that ordinance was properly enacted.” Id. at 555, 976 P.2d at 481 (citing South Fork Coalition, 117 Idaho at 861 , 792 P.2d at 886 ). 2003The rationale behind the rule is “that to permit retroactive application of an ordinance would allow a zoning authority to change or enact a zoning law merely to defeat an application, which would result in giving immediate effect to a future or proposed zoning ordinance before that ordinance was properly enacted.” Id. at 555, 976 P.2d at 481 (citing South Fork Coalition, 117 Idaho at 861 , 792 P.2d at 886 ). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Payette River Property Owners Ass'n v. Board of Commissioners
green
1 sentence2003The rationale behind the rule is “that to permit retroactive application of an ordinance would allow a zoning authority to change or enact a zoning law merely to defeat an application, which would result in giving immediate effect to a future or proposed zoning ordinance before that ordinance was properly enacted.” Id. at 555, 976 P.2d at 481 (citing South Fork Coalition, 117 Idaho at 861 , 792 P.2d at 886 ). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State, Bureau of Child Support v. Knowles
green
1 sentence2000In explaining the rationale behind the doctrine of res judicata, the Court of Appeals stated that “res judicata prevents litigants who were parties in a prior action and those in privity with them from bringing or having to defend a claim arising from the transaction or series of transactions giving rise to the first suit.” Id. (emphasis in original). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Prewitt v. Whittaker
green
1 sentence1999Id. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Joseph v. Duran
green
1 sentence1999For example, in Joseph v. Duran, 436 So.2d 316 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983), the court held that when lots abutting a vacated alleyway were conveyed by lot and block number only, the owners had conveyed not only title to the lots described in the deed, but also title to the *280 center line of the alley abutting the lots. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Quick v. Crane
green
2 sentences1991As we explained in Quick v. Crane , "The trial judge is sitting at the heart of our trial process, a position we on the appellate level cannot duplicate." 111 Idaho at 767, 727 P.2d at 1195 . 1991As we explained in Quick v. Crane, “The trial judge is sitting at the heart of our trial process, a position we on the appellate level cannot duplicate.” 111 Idaho at 767 , 727 P.2d at 1195 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.