7 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bliss v. Blissgreen2 sentences2023However, Idaho’s courts have followed our own path in establishing the requirements of a trust: the settlor must manifest an intent to create a trust, and “[t]here must be certainty . . . as to the property to be subjected to the trust, the identity of the beneficiaries, and the manner in which the trust fund is to be administered and used.” Est. of Hull v. Williams, 126 Idaho 437, 443 , 885 P.2d 1153, 1159 (Ct. App. 1994) (citing Bliss v. Bliss, 20 Idaho 467, 476, 476 , 119 P. 451, 454 (1911)). 2023However, Idaho’s courts have followed our own path in establishing the requirements of a trust: the settlor must manifest an intent to create a trust, and “[t]here must be certainty . . . as to the property to be subjected to the trust, the identity of the beneficiaries, and the manner in which the trust fund is to be administered and used.” Est. of Hull v. Williams, 126 Idaho 437, 443 , 885 P.2d 1153, 1159 (Ct. App. 1994) (citing Bliss v. Bliss, 20 Idaho 467, 476, 476 , 119 P. 451, 454 (1911)). | 2 | 2 |
Keitel v. Heubelgreen2 sentences2023Appellants base their argument on the five-element test for an express trust set forth in a California case, Keitel v. Heubel, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 763, 773 (Cal. App. 2002). 2023Appellants base their argument on the five-element test for an express trust set forth in a California case, Keitel v. Heubel, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 763, 773 (Cal. App. 2002). | 2 | 2 |
Estate of Hull v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2023However, Idaho’s courts have followed our own path in establishing the requirements of a trust: the settlor must manifest an intent to create a trust, and “[t]here must be certainty . . . as to the property to be subjected to the trust, the identity of the beneficiaries, and the manner in which the trust fund is to be administered and used.” Est. of Hull v. Williams, 126 Idaho 437, 443 , 885 P.2d 1153, 1159 (Ct. App. 1994) (citing Bliss v. Bliss, 20 Idaho 467, 476, 476 , 119 P. 451, 454 (1911)). 2023However, Idaho’s courts have followed our own path in establishing the requirements of a trust: the settlor must manifest an intent to create a trust, and “[t]here must be certainty . . . as to the property to be subjected to the trust, the identity of the beneficiaries, and the manner in which the trust fund is to be administered and used.” Est. of Hull v. Williams, 126 Idaho 437, 443 , 885 P.2d 1153, 1159 (Ct. App. 1994) (citing Bliss v. Bliss, 20 Idaho 467, 476, 476 , 119 P. 451, 454 (1911)). | 2 | 2 |
Ticor Title Co. v. Staniongreen2 sentences2025Id. 2025Id. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Levon F. Cordingley - Poss
green
2 sentences2021Id. 2021Id. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
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.