Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1912–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cassino v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.green2 sentences2014I.R.E. 408; See Cassino v. Reichhold Chemicals, 817 F.2d 1338 , 1342-43 (9th Cir.1987). 2014I.R.E. 408; See Cassino v. Reichhold Chemicals, 817 F.2d 1338 , 1342–43 (9th Cir. 1987). | 2 | 2 |
Taylor v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2019As this Court has repeatedly held: “we are restricted to the record before us and may not consider matters outside the record.” Taylor v. Taylor, 163 Idaho 910, 920, 422 P.3d 1116, 1126 (2018), as corrected (July 31, 2018) (citation and brackets omitted). 2019As this Court has repeatedly held: “we are restricted to the record before us and may not consider matters outside the record.” Taylor v. Taylor, 163 Idaho 910, 920, 422 P.3d 1116, 1126 (2018), as corrected (July 31, 2018) (citation and brackets omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Dashnea v. Panhandle Lumber Co., Ltdgreen2 sentences2009It is well established “that a promise to do, or the doing of, what one is already bound by contract to do, is not valid consideration.” Dashnea v. Panhandle Lumber Co., 57 Idaho 232, 238 , 64 P.2d 390, 393 (1937) (quoting Indep. 2009It is well established “that a promise to do, or the doing of, what one is already bound by contract to do, is not valid consideration.” Dashnea v. Panhandle Lumber Co., 57 Idaho 232, 238 , 64 P.2d 390, 393 (1937) (quoting Indep. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fairchild v. Mathews
green
1 sentence2009The Court was merely stating it would not imply that a negotiable instrument was being tendered in full settlement of a disputed claim where the language employed in the instrument was ambiguous in nature, rather than "plain, definite, and certain.” Id. 6 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Anderson v. Farmers Insurance Co. of Idaho
green
2 sentences2003They are merely offers to compromise a disputed claim.” Anderson, 130 Idaho at 758 , 947 P.2d at 1006 . 2003They are merely offers to compromise a disputed claim.” Anderson, 130 Idaho at 758 , 947 P.2d at 1006 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Devil Creek Ranch, Inc. v. Cedar Mesa Reservoir & Canal Co.
green
2 sentences1994In Devil Creek Ranch, Inc. v. Cedar Mesa Reservoir & Canal Co., 123 Idaho 634 , 851 P.2d 348 (1993) (Devil Creek Ranch I), this Court vacated the summary judgment granted in favor of Cedar Mesa and remanded the cause for further proceedings. 1994In Devil Creek Ranch, Inc. v. Cedar Mesa Reservoir & Canal Co., 123 Idaho 634 , 851 P.2d 348 (1993) (Devil Creek Ranch I), this Court vacated the summary judgment granted in favor of Cedar Mesa and remanded the cause for further proceedings. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Sanders v. Standard Wheel Co.
green
2 sentences1940Jur., pp. 223-226, secs. 22-25.) The rule is very succinctly stated by the Supreme Court of Kentucky in Sanders v. Standard Wheel Co., 151 Ky. 257 , 151 S. W. 674 , as follows: ‘ ‘ The tender of a sum less than the contract price, in settlement of a disputed claim, must be accompanied with a statement, not which may be understood by the creditor as intended to be in full settlement and satisfaction of the claim, but which must be so understood by him. 1940Jur., pp. 223-226, secs. 22-25.) The rule is very succinctly stated by the Supreme Court of Kentucky in Sanders v. Standard Wheel Co., 151 Ky. 257 , 151 S. W. 674 , as follows: ‘ ‘ The tender of a sum less than the contract price, in settlement of a disputed claim, must be accompanied with a statement, not which may be understood by the creditor as intended to be in full settlement and satisfaction of the claim, but which must be so understood by him. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Roseborough v. Whittington
neutral
2 sentences1912St. 256, 105 Pac. 407 ; Bowers v. Cottrell, 15 Ida. 221 , 96 Pac. 936 ; Roseborough v. Whittington, 15 Ida. 100 , 96 Pac. 437 ; Lamb v. Licey, 16 Ida. 664 , 102 Pac. 378 .) Appellants place their principal reliance for reversal, however, upon the proposition that this is an action on an agreement of settlement of a disputed claim, and that the parties were dealing at arm’s-length and that there is no competent evidence of any fraud being practiced or misrepresentation being made by the appellants in procuring this contract, and that the defense of fraud and misrepresentation has not been estab 1912St. 256, 105 Pac. 407 ; Bowers v. Cottrell, 15 Ida. 221 , 96 Pac. 936 ; Roseborough v. Whittington, 15 Ida. 100 , 96 Pac. 437 ; Lamb v. Licey, 16 Ida. 664 , 102 Pac. 378 .) Appellants place their principal reliance for reversal, however, upon the proposition that this is an action on an agreement of settlement of a disputed claim, and that the parties were dealing at arm’s-length and that there is no competent evidence of any fraud being practiced or misrepresentation being made by the appellants in procuring this contract, and that the defense of fraud and misrepresentation has not been estab | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Bowers v. Cottrell
green
2 sentences1912St. 256, 105 Pac. 407 ; Bowers v. Cottrell, 15 Ida. 221 , 96 Pac. 936 ; Roseborough v. Whittington, 15 Ida. 100 , 96 Pac. 437 ; Lamb v. Licey, 16 Ida. 664 , 102 Pac. 378 .) Appellants place their principal reliance for reversal, however, upon the proposition that this is an action on an agreement of settlement of a disputed claim, and that the parties were dealing at arm’s-length and that there is no competent evidence of any fraud being practiced or misrepresentation being made by the appellants in procuring this contract, and that the defense of fraud and misrepresentation has not been estab 1912St. 256, 105 Pac. 407 ; Bowers v. Cottrell, 15 Ida. 221 , 96 Pac. 936 ; Roseborough v. Whittington, 15 Ida. 100 , 96 Pac. 437 ; Lamb v. Licey, 16 Ida. 664 , 102 Pac. 378 .) Appellants place their principal reliance for reversal, however, upon the proposition that this is an action on an agreement of settlement of a disputed claim, and that the parties were dealing at arm’s-length and that there is no competent evidence of any fraud being practiced or misrepresentation being made by the appellants in procuring this contract, and that the defense of fraud and misrepresentation has not been estab | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Lamb v. Licey
neutral
2 sentences1912St. 256, 105 Pac. 407 ; Bowers v. Cottrell, 15 Ida. 221 , 96 Pac. 936 ; Roseborough v. Whittington, 15 Ida. 100 , 96 Pac. 437 ; Lamb v. Licey, 16 Ida. 664 , 102 Pac. 378 .) Appellants place their principal reliance for reversal, however, upon the proposition that this is an action on an agreement of settlement of a disputed claim, and that the parties were dealing at arm’s-length and that there is no competent evidence of any fraud being practiced or misrepresentation being made by the appellants in procuring this contract, and that the defense of fraud and misrepresentation has not been estab 1912St. 256, 105 Pac. 407 ; Bowers v. Cottrell, 15 Ida. 221 , 96 Pac. 936 ; Roseborough v. Whittington, 15 Ida. 100 , 96 Pac. 437 ; Lamb v. Licey, 16 Ida. 664 , 102 Pac. 378 .) Appellants place their principal reliance for reversal, however, upon the proposition that this is an action on an agreement of settlement of a disputed claim, and that the parties were dealing at arm’s-length and that there is no competent evidence of any fraud being practiced or misrepresentation being made by the appellants in procuring this contract, and that the defense of fraud and misrepresentation has not been estab | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Eaves v. Sheppard
neutral
1 sentence1912St. 256, 105 Pac. 407 ; Bowers v. Cottrell, 15 Ida. 221 , 96 Pac. 936 ; Roseborough v. Whittington, 15 Ida. 100 , 96 Pac. 437 ; Lamb v. Licey, 16 Ida. 664 , 102 Pac. 378 .) Appellants place their principal reliance for reversal, however, upon the proposition that this is an action on an agreement of settlement of a disputed claim, and that the parties were dealing at arm’s-length and that there is no competent evidence of any fraud being practiced or misrepresentation being made by the appellants in procuring this contract, and that the defense of fraud and misrepresentation has not been estab | 1 | 1912–1912 |
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.