7 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ramerth v. Hartgreen2 sentences2004The Nelsons rely on the Idaho Supreme Court’s decision in Ramerih, which explained that “there may be cases where the plaintiff may be unfairly prejudiced by the operation of the economic loss rule in combination with the privity requirement.” Ramerth v. Hart, 133 Idaho 194, 198 , 983 P.2d 848, 852 (1999). 2004The Nelsons rely on the Idaho Supreme Court’s decision in Ramerih, which explained that “there may be cases where the plaintiff may be unfairly prejudiced by the operation of the economic loss rule in combination with the privity requirement.” Ramerth v. Hart, 133 Idaho 194, 198 , 983 P.2d 848, 852 (1999). | 1 | 2 |
Pelham v. Griesheimergreen2 sentences2004For example, in Pelham v. Griesheimer, 92 Ill.2d 13 , 64 Ill.Dec. 544 , 440 N.E.2d 96, 99-100 (1982) (citations omitted), the Illinois Supreme Court held as follows: While privity of contract has been abolished in many areas of tort law, the concern is still that liability for negligence not extend to an unlimited and unknown number of potential plaintiffs. 2004For example, in Pelham v. Griesheimer, 92 Ill.2d 13 , 64 Ill.Dec. 544 , 440 N.E.2d 96, 99-100 (1982) (citations omitted), the Illinois Supreme Court held as follows: While privity of contract has been abolished in many areas of tort law, the concern is still that liability for negligence not extend to an unlimited and unknown number of potential plaintiffs. | 1 | 1 |
Barcelo v. Elliottgreen1 sentence2004In Barcelo v. Elliott, 923 S.W.2d 575, 578-79 (Tex.1996), the Texas Supreme Court stated: In sum, we are unable to craft a bright-line rule that allows a lawsuit to proceed where alleged malpractice causes a will or trust to fail in a manner that casts no real doubt on the testator’s intentions, while prohibiting actions in other situations. | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. International Harvester Co.green2 sentences1985He can, however, be fairly charged with the risk that the product will not match his economic expectations unless the manufacturer agrees that it will.” 99 Idaho at 334 [ 581 P.2d 784 ], Thus, the privity requirement has been imposed by the court to allocate risks between the buyer and the seller of a product. 1985He can, however, be fairly charged with the risk that the product will not match his economic expectations unless the manufacturer agrees that it will.” 99 Idaho at 334 [ 581 P.2d 784 ], Thus, the privity requirement has been imposed by the court to allocate risks between the buyer and the seller of a product. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Salmon Rivers Sportsman Camps, Inc. v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
green
2 sentences2018Petrus cites to Salmon Rivers Sportsman Camps, Inc. v. Cessna Aircraft Co. , 97 Idaho 348 , 544 P.2d 306 (1975), to contend that the absence of a privity requirement shows Petrus's claim arises in tort. 2018Petrus cites to Salmon Rivers Sportsman Camps, Inc. v. Cessna Aircraft Co. , 97 Idaho 348 , 544 P.2d 306 (1975), to contend that the absence of a privity requirement shows Petrus's claim arises in tort. | 2 | 2013–2018 |
Nelson v. Anderson Lumber Co.
green
2 sentences2018In dicta, CNH acknowledged that the Idaho Court of Appeals had addressed "the potential to relax the Salmon Rivers rule on the basis of unfair prejudice" and held that "a party is not unfairly prejudiced where the privity requirement and the economic loss rule work to preclude a party from recovering if the party had a viable cause of action against another party." Id. (citing Nelson v. Anderson Lumber Co. , 140 Idaho 702 , 711, 99 P.3d 1092 , 1101 (Ct. App. 2004) ). 2018In dicta, CNH acknowledged that the Idaho Court of Appeals had addressed "the potential to relax the Salmon Rivers rule on the basis of unfair prejudice" and held that "a party is not unfairly prejudiced where the privity requirement and the economic loss rule work to preclude a party from recovering if the party had a viable cause of action against another party." Id. (citing Nelson v. Anderson Lumber Co. , 140 Idaho 702 , 711, 99 P.3d 1092 , 1101 (Ct. App. 2004) ). | 2 | 2013–2018 |
Tusch Enterprises v. Coffin
green
2 sentences1999The Court in the majority opinion in 113 Idaho at 50 , 740 P.2d at 1035 , stated: Therefore, we decline to extend the privity requirement enunciated in Salmon Rivers to the facts at hand. 1999The Court in the majority opinion in 113 Idaho at 50 , 740 P.2d at 1035 , stated: Therefore, we decline to extend the privity requirement enunciated in Salmon Rivers to the facts at hand. | 2 | 1999–2018 |
American West Enterprises, Inc. v. CNH, LLC
green
1 sentence2018In dicta, CNH acknowledged that the Idaho Court of Appeals had addressed "the potential to relax the Salmon Rivers rule on the basis of unfair prejudice" and held that "a party is not unfairly prejudiced where the privity requirement and the economic loss rule work to preclude a party from recovering if the party had a viable cause of action against another party." Id. (citing Nelson v. Anderson Lumber Co. , 140 Idaho 702 , 711, 99 P.3d 1092 , 1101 (Ct. App. 2004) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Mitchell Construction Co.
green
2 sentences2013American West argues that the privity requirement in Salmon Rivers was overruled in State v. Mitchell Const. Co., 108 Idaho 335 , 699 P.2d 1349 (1984), in which three justices expressed their view that Salmon Rivers was no longer valid. 2013American West argues that the privity requirement in Salmon Rivers was overruled in State v. Mitchell Const. Co., 108 Idaho 335 , 699 P.2d 1349 (1984), in which three justices expressed their view that Salmon Rivers was no longer valid. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Biakanja v. Irving
green
2 sentences2004In Biakanja v. Irving, 49 Cal.2d 647 , 320 P.2d 16 (1958), the California Supreme Court replaced the privity requirement with a multi-factor balancing approach in a case involving the allegedly negligent drafting of a will by a nonlawyer. 2004In Biakanja v. Irving, 49 Cal.2d 647 , 320 P.2d 16 (1958), the California Supreme Court replaced the privity requirement with a multi-factor balancing approach in a case involving the allegedly negligent drafting of a will by a nonlawyer. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Adkison Corp. v. American Building Co.
green
2 sentences1994The Court, citing Clark , refused to recognize the theory of implied warranties in tort to recover such damages, reasoning that “breach of implied warranty actions for purely economic losses must be viewed in a contract setting with relevant contract principles”, and therefore “the law of contracts should control actions for purely economic losses and not the law of torts.” Adkison, 107 Idaho at 410-11 , 690 P.2d at 345-46 . 1994The Court, citing Clark , refused to recognize the theory of implied warranties in tort to recover such damages, reasoning that “breach of implied warranty actions for purely economic losses must be viewed in a contract setting with relevant contract principles”, and therefore “the law of contracts should control actions for purely economic losses and not the law of torts.” Adkison, 107 Idaho at 410-11 , 690 P.2d at 345-46 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Seely v. White Motor Co.
green
2 sentences1985Both decisions, however, relied upon the California case of Seely v. White Motor Co., [ 63 Cal.2d 9 , 45 Cal.Rptr. 17 ] 403 P.2d 145 (1965), for bedrock support to deny liability for economic loss in negligence. 1985Both decisions, however, relied upon the California case of Seely v. White Motor Co., [ 63 Cal.2d 9 , 45 Cal.Rptr. 17 ] 403 P.2d 145 (1965), for bedrock support to deny liability for economic loss in negligence. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.