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 1964–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fletcher v. Lone Mountain Road Ass'ngreen2 sentences2023Ass’n, 162 Idaho 347, 354 , 396 P.3d 1229, 1236 (2017)) (alteration in original). 2023Ass’n, 162 Idaho 347, 354 , 396 P.3d 1229, 1236 (2017)) (alteration in original). | 2 | 2 |
Riverside Development Co. v. Ritchiegreen2 sentences1993In the Idaho case of Brand S v. King, 103 Ida. 731 [sic 102 Idaho 731 ], at 734 [ 639 P.2d 429 ], it was stated that waiver is a voluntary, intentional relinquishment of a known right or advantage. [4] In the case of Riverside Development v. Ritchie, 103 Ida. 515 [ 650 P.2d 657 ], the court said the existence of a waiver is ordinarily a question of fact [5] and if there *562 is substantial evidence in the record to support such waiver it is for the trier of fact to determine whether the evidence establishes such waiver. 1993In the Idaho case of Brand S v. King, 103 Ida. 731 [sic 102 Idaho 731 ], at 734 [ 639 P.2d 429 ], it was stated that waiver is a voluntary, intentional relinquishment of a known right or advantage. [4] In the case of Riverside Development v. Ritchie, 103 Ida. 515 [ 650 P.2d 657 ], the court said the existence of a waiver is ordinarily a question of fact [5] and if there *562 is substantial evidence in the record to support such waiver it is for the trier of fact to determine whether the evidence establishes such waiver. | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pocatello Hospital, LLC v. Quail Ridge Medical Investor, LLC
green
2 sentences2023“In order to establish waiver the intention to waive must clearly appear, although it may be established by conduct.” Id. “[I]f there is any substantial evidence in the record to support a waiver[,] it is for the trier of fact to determine whether the evidence establishes such a waiver.” Id. (quoting Fletcher v. Lone Mountain Rd. 2023“In order to establish waiver the intention to waive must clearly appear, although it may be established by conduct.” Id. “[I]f there is any substantial evidence in the record to support a waiver[,] it is for the trier of fact to determine whether the evidence establishes such a waiver.” Id. (quoting Fletcher v. Lone Mountain Rd. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Hecla Mining Co. v. Star-Morning Mining Co.
green
1 sentence2019“In order to establish waiver the intention to waive must clearly appear, although it may be established by conduct.” Id. “[I]f there is any substantial evidence in the record to support a waiver it is for the trier of fact to determine whether the evidence establishes such a waiver.” Fletcher v. Lone Mountain Rd. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Brand S Corp. v. King
green
2 sentences1993In the Idaho case of Brand S v. King, 103 Ida. 731 [sic 102 Idaho 731 ], at 734 [ 639 P.2d 429 ], it was stated that waiver is a voluntary, intentional relinquishment of a known right or advantage. [4] In the case of Riverside Development v. Ritchie, 103 Ida. 515 [ 650 P.2d 657 ], the court said the existence of a waiver is ordinarily a question of fact [5] and if there *562 is substantial evidence in the record to support such waiver it is for the trier of fact to determine whether the evidence establishes such waiver. 1993In the Idaho case of Brand S v. King, 103 Ida. 731 [sic 102 Idaho 731 ], at 734 [ 639 P.2d 429 ], it was stated that waiver is a voluntary, intentional relinquishment of a known right or advantage. [4] In the case of Riverside Development v. Ritchie, 103 Ida. 515 [ 650 P.2d 657 ], the court said the existence of a waiver is ordinarily a question of fact [5] and if there *562 is substantial evidence in the record to support such waiver it is for the trier of fact to determine whether the evidence establishes such waiver. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Bell v. Carlson
green
2 sentences1964In Bell v. Carlson, 75 Idaho 193, 200 , 270 P.2d 420 , it was held to be reversible error for a trial court to submit the issue to the jury where “ * * the charge of contributory negligence [was] not sustained by substantial evidence in the record * * We have no disagreement with such holding, but the record in this case contains such evidence from which the jury could reasonably have inferred and determined that the plaintiff was negligent himself and that his negligence was a proximate cause and did contribute *394 to his injuries. 1964In Bell v. Carlson, 75 Idaho 193, 200 , 270 P.2d 420 , it was held to be reversible error for a trial court to submit the issue to the jury where “ * * the charge of contributory negligence [was] not sustained by substantial evidence in the record * * We have no disagreement with such holding, but the record in this case contains such evidence from which the jury could reasonably have inferred and determined that the plaintiff was negligent himself and that his negligence was a proximate cause and did contribute *394 to his injuries. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.