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.
7 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nevada v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2012Further, “when a final judgment has been entered on the merits of a case, ‘[i]t is a finality as to the claim or demand in controversy, concluding parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but *180 as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.” Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110, 129-30 , 103 S.Ct. 2906, 2918 , 77 L.Ed.2d 509, 524 (1983) (quotation omitted). 2. 2012Further, “when a final judgment has been entered on the merits of a case, ‘[i]t is a finality as to the claim or demand in controversy, concluding parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but *180 as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.” Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110, 129-30 , 103 S.Ct. 2906, 2918 , 77 L.Ed.2d 509, 524 (1983) (quotation omitted). 2. | 3 | 3 |
Knox v. STATE EX REL. OTTERgreen2 sentences2023Otter, 148 Idaho 324, 338 , 223 P.3d 266, 280 (2009) (quoting Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110, 129-30 (1983)). 2023Otter, 148 Idaho 324, 338 , 223 P.3d 266, 280 (2009) (quoting Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110, 129-30 (1983)). | 1 | 1 |
Daniel v. County of Santa Barbaragreen1 sentence2013Daniel, 288 F.3d at 382. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Marriage of Flannagan
green
2 sentences1987In Flannagan v. Flannagan, 42 Wash. App. 214 , 709 P.2d 1247 (1985), the court recognized the uniqueness of this situation in allowing for reexamination of final decrees in light of the USFSPA, despite the importance of the finality of judgments doctrine: While we recognize the importance of finality of judgments, some situations justify an exception to this "doctrine of finality." We hold that the circumstances presented in these cases are sufficiently extraordinary to permit the use of a C.R. 60(b)(11) [a procedural mechanism analogous to portions of I.R.C.P. 1987In Flannagan v. Flannagan, 42 Wash. App. 214 , 709 P.2d 1247 (1985), the court recognized the uniqueness of this situation in allowing for reexamination of final decrees in light of the USFSPA, despite the importance of the finality of judgments doctrine: While we recognize the importance of finality of judgments, some situations justify an exception to this "doctrine of finality." We hold that the circumstances presented in these cases are sufficiently extraordinary to permit the use of a C.R. 60(b)(11) [a procedural mechanism analogous to portions of I.R.C.P. | 2 | 1987–1989 |
Allison v. Allison
green
2 sentences1987The trial court in the instant case emphasized Allison v. Allison, 690 S.W.2d 340 (Tex.App.1985); wherein the claimant was denied relief from a final judgment in the analogous situation where the claimant wished to reopen the judgment in light of the USFSPA. 1987The trial court in the instant case emphasized Allison v. Allison, 690 S.W.2d 340 (Tex. App. 1985); wherein the claimant was denied relief from a final judgment in the analogous situation where the claimant wished to reopen the judgment in light of the USFSPA. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Cobb
green
1 sentence1981Nevertheless, in Kraft III, which came up on the expedited calendar arrangement, with Justice McFadden and Justice Bistline not sitting, a unanimous Court including Justice Bakes ruled that Kraft's petition for relief was barred by the civil doctrine of res judicata, the court drawing support for its application of the finality doctrine from Idaho's version of the Uniform Post-Conviction Relief Act. 100 Idaho at 673-74 , 603 P.2d at 1007-08. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.