10 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1922–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bates v. Seldingreen2 sentences2015Id. at 776-77 , 203 P.3d at 706-07 (internal citations omitted). 2015Id. at 776-77 , 203 P.3d at 706-07 (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Kootenai County v. Harriman-Saylergreen2 sentences2013The Siegwarths seek an award of attorney fees pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 12-120 ,12-121, and 12-123 “on the grounds that Respondents’ defense to this this action was, in whole or in part, not supported in fact or warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.” “A party is entitled to attorney fees on appeal only if fees are authorized by statute, contract, or court rule.” Kootenai County v. Harriman-Sayler, 154 Idaho 13, 20 , 293 P.3d 637, 644 (2012). 2013The Siegwarths seek an award of attorney fees pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 12-120 ,12-121, and 12-123 “on the grounds that Respondents’ defense to this this action was, in whole or in part, not supported in fact or warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.” “A party is entitled to attorney fees on appeal only if fees are authorized by statute, contract, or court rule.” Kootenai County v. Harriman-Sayler, 154 Idaho 13, 20 , 293 P.3d 637, 644 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
Goodman Oil Co. v. Scotty's Duro-Bilt Generator, Inc.green2 sentences2010Goodman Oil Co. v. Scotty’s Duro-Bilt Generator, Inc., 147 Idaho 56, 59 , 205 P.3d 1192, 1195 (2009); State ex rel. 2010Goodman Oil Co. v. Scotty’s Duro-Bilt Generator, Inc., 147 Idaho 56, 59 , 205 P.3d 1192, 1195 (2009); State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Hellickson v. Jenkinsgreen2 sentences1996See I.R.C.P. 12(b) and 12(c); Boesiger v. DeModena, 88 Idaho 337 , 399 P.2d 635 (1965); Hellickson v. Jenkins, 118 Idaho 273, 276 , 796 P.2d 150, 153 (Ct.App.1990). 1996See I.R.C.P. 12(b) and 12(c); Boesiger v. DeModena, 88 Idaho 337 , 399 P.2d 635 (1965); Hellickson v. Jenkins, 118 Idaho 273, 276 , 796 P.2d 150, 153 (Ct.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Joyce v. Murphy Land & Irrigation Co.green2 sentences1982The rule has been set forth in Intermountain Food Equipment Co. v. Waller, 86 Idaho 94 , 383 P.2d 612 (1963) that “[i]n an action between the same parties upon the same claim or demand, the former adjudication concludes parties and privies not only as to every matter offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but also as to every matter which might and should have been litigated on the first suit.” Id. at 98 , 383 P.2d at 615 (quoting, Joyce v. Murphy Land & Irrigation Co., 35 Idaho 549, 553 , 208 P. 241, 242 (1922)). 1982The rule has been set forth in Intermountain Food Equipment Co. v. Waller, 86 Idaho 94 , 383 P.2d 612 (1963) that “[i]n an action between the same parties upon the same claim or demand, the former adjudication concludes parties and privies not only as to every matter offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but also as to every matter which might and should have been litigated on the first suit.” Id. at 98 , 383 P.2d at 615 (quoting, Joyce v. Murphy Land & Irrigation Co., 35 Idaho 549, 553 , 208 P. 241, 242 (1922)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dulaney v. St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center
green
2 sentences2011For the same reasons, the court also granted summary judgment to the Respondents on the informed consent claim. 5 In order to avoid summary judgment in a medical malpractice case, a plaintiff must provide expert testimony that the defendant doctor, or other health care provider, “negligently failed to meet the applicable standard of health care practice.” Dulaney, 137 Idaho at 164 , 45 P.3d at 820 . 2011For the same reasons, the court also granted summary judgment to the Respondents on the informed consent claim. 5 In order to avoid summary judgment in a medical malpractice case, a plaintiff must provide expert testimony that the defendant doctor, or other health care provider, “negligently failed to meet the applicable standard of health care practice.” Dulaney, 137 Idaho at 164 , 45 P.3d at 820 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Jacobsen v. State
green
2 sentences1996Pursuant to the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure applicable to habeas corpus actions, Jacobsen v. State, 99 Idaho 45 , 577 P.2d 24 (1978); Sivak v. Ada County, 118 Idaho 193 , 795 P.2d 898 (Ct.App.1990), the magistrate was required to treat the Respondents’ motion as one for summary judgment under I.R.C.P. 56 upon considering matters outside the pleadings. 1996Pursuant to the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure applicable to habeas corpus actions, Jacobsen v. State, 99 Idaho 45 , 577 P.2d 24 (1978); Sivak v. Ada County, 118 Idaho 193 , 795 P.2d 898 (Ct.App.1990), the magistrate was required to treat the Respondents’ motion as one for summary judgment under I.R.C.P. 56 upon considering matters outside the pleadings. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Sivak v. Ada County
green
2 sentences1996Pursuant to the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure applicable to habeas corpus actions, Jacobsen v. State, 99 Idaho 45 , 577 P.2d 24 (1978); Sivak v. Ada County, 118 Idaho 193 , 795 P.2d 898 (Ct.App.1990), the magistrate was required to treat the Respondents’ motion as one for summary judgment under I.R.C.P. 56 upon considering matters outside the pleadings. 1996Pursuant to the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure applicable to habeas corpus actions, Jacobsen v. State, 99 Idaho 45 , 577 P.2d 24 (1978); Sivak v. Ada County, 118 Idaho 193 , 795 P.2d 898 (Ct.App.1990), the magistrate was required to treat the Respondents’ motion as one for summary judgment under I.R.C.P. 56 upon considering matters outside the pleadings. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Boesiger v. DeModena
green
2 sentences1996See I.R.C.P. 12(b) and 12(c); Boesiger v. DeModena, 88 Idaho 337 , 399 P.2d 635 (1965); Hellickson v. Jenkins, 118 Idaho 273, 276 , 796 P.2d 150, 153 (Ct.App.1990). 1996See I.R.C.P. 12(b) and 12(c); Boesiger v. DeModena, 88 Idaho 337 , 399 P.2d 635 (1965); Hellickson v. Jenkins, 118 Idaho 273, 276 , 796 P.2d 150, 153 (Ct.App.1990). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
City of Franklin v. Badger Ford Truck Sales, Inc.
green
2 sentences1986"In support of this argument, the respondents rely upon City of Franklin v. Badger Ford Truck Sales, 58 Wis.2d 641 , 207 N.W.2d 866 (1973), and Wyandotte Chemicals *1312 Corp. v. Royal Electric Mfg., 66 Wis.2d 577 , 225 N.W.2d 648 (1975). 1986"In support of this argument, the respondents rely upon City of Franklin v. Badger Ford Truck Sales, 58 Wis.2d 641 , 207 N.W.2d 866 (1973), and Wyandotte Chemicals *1312 Corp. v. Royal Electric Mfg., 66 Wis.2d 577 , 225 N.W.2d 648 (1975). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Wyandotte Chemicals Corp. v. Royal Electric Manufacturing Company, Inc.
green
2 sentences1986"In support of this argument, the respondents rely upon City of Franklin v. Badger Ford Truck Sales, 58 Wis.2d 641 , 207 N.W.2d 866 (1973), and Wyandotte Chemicals *1312 Corp. v. Royal Electric Mfg., 66 Wis.2d 577 , 225 N.W.2d 648 (1975). 1986"In support of this argument, the respondents rely upon City of Franklin v. Badger Ford Truck Sales, 58 Wis.2d 641 , 207 N.W.2d 866 (1973), and Wyandotte Chemicals *1312 Corp. v. Royal Electric Mfg., 66 Wis.2d 577 , 225 N.W.2d 648 (1975). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Intermountain Food Equipment Co. v. Waller
green
2 sentences1982The rule has been set forth in Intermountain Food Equipment Co. v. Waller, 86 Idaho 94 , 383 P.2d 612 (1963) that “[i]n an action between the same parties upon the same claim or demand, the former adjudication concludes parties and privies not only as to every matter offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but also as to every matter which might and should have been litigated on the first suit.” Id. at 98 , 383 P.2d at 615 (quoting, Joyce v. Murphy Land & Irrigation Co., 35 Idaho 549, 553 , 208 P. 241, 242 (1922)). 1982The rule has been set forth in Intermountain Food Equipment Co. v. Waller, 86 Idaho 94 , 383 P.2d 612 (1963) that “[i]n an action between the same parties upon the same claim or demand, the former adjudication concludes parties and privies not only as to every matter offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but also as to every matter which might and should have been litigated on the first suit.” Id. at 98 , 383 P.2d at 615 (quoting, Joyce v. Murphy Land & Irrigation Co., 35 Idaho 549, 553 , 208 P. 241, 242 (1922)). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Ben Lomond, Inc. v. City of Idaho Falls
green
2 sentences1973In support of this contention the respondents rely on Ben Lomond, Inc. v. City of Idaho Falls, 92 Idaho 595 , 448 P.2d 209 (1968). 1973In support of this contention the respondents rely on Ben Lomond, Inc. v. City of Idaho Falls, 92 Idaho 595 , 448 P.2d 209 (1968). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Buelna v. Ryan
green
1 sentence1934(In re Sanford’s Estate, 7 Cal. Unrep. 159 , 73 Pac. 466 ; State v. Keels, 39 S. C. 553, 17 S. E. 724, 802 .) Respondents’ motion to recall the remittitur and modify the judgment, therefore is denied. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
State v. Salters
green
1 sentence1934(In re Sanford’s Estate, 7 Cal. Unrep. 159 , 73 Pac. 466 ; State v. Keels, 39 S. C. 553, 17 S. E. 724, 802 .) Respondents’ motion to recall the remittitur and modify the judgment, therefore is denied. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
In re Sanford's Estate
neutral
1 sentence1934(In re Sanford’s Estate, 7 Cal. Unrep. 159 , 73 Pac. 466 ; State v. Keels, 39 S. C. 553, 17 S. E. 724, 802 .) Respondents’ motion to recall the remittitur and modify the judgment, therefore is denied. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
King v. Seebeck
neutral
2 sentences1922S., sec. 7154; King v. Seebeck, 20 Ida. 223 , 118 Pac. 292 ; Martin v. Wilson, 24 Ida. 363 , 134 Pac. 532 ; Clear Lake Power etc. Co. v. Chriswell, 31 Ida. 339 , 173 Pac. 326 .) Respondents’ objection to the undertaking does not point out the alleged defects or insufficiencies. 1922S., sec. 7154; King v. Seebeck, 20 Ida. 223 , 118 Pac. 292 ; Martin v. Wilson, 24 Ida. 363 , 134 Pac. 532 ; Clear Lake Power etc. Co. v. Chriswell, 31 Ida. 339 , 173 Pac. 326 .) Respondents’ objection to the undertaking does not point out the alleged defects or insufficiencies. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Martin v. Wilson
green
1 sentence1922S., sec. 7154; King v. Seebeck, 20 Ida. 223 , 118 Pac. 292 ; Martin v. Wilson, 24 Ida. 363 , 134 Pac. 532 ; Clear Lake Power etc. Co. v. Chriswell, 31 Ida. 339 , 173 Pac. 326 .) Respondents’ objection to the undertaking does not point out the alleged defects or insufficiencies. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Clear Lake Power & Improvement Co. v. Chriswell
neutral
2 sentences1922S., sec. 7154; King v. Seebeck, 20 Ida. 223 , 118 Pac. 292 ; Martin v. Wilson, 24 Ida. 363 , 134 Pac. 532 ; Clear Lake Power etc. Co. v. Chriswell, 31 Ida. 339 , 173 Pac. 326 .) Respondents’ objection to the undertaking does not point out the alleged defects or insufficiencies. 1922S., sec. 7154; King v. Seebeck, 20 Ida. 223 , 118 Pac. 292 ; Martin v. Wilson, 24 Ida. 363 , 134 Pac. 532 ; Clear Lake Power etc. Co. v. Chriswell, 31 Ida. 339 , 173 Pac. 326 .) Respondents’ objection to the undertaking does not point out the alleged defects or insufficiencies. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
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.