55 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2025 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Martha A. Arregui v. Rosalinda Gallegos-Maingreen2 sentences2020STANDARD OF REVIEW “On appeal from the grant of a motion for summary judgment, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the district court originally ruling on the motion.” Mattox v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 157 Idaho 468, 472 , 337 P.3d 627, 631 (2014) (quoting Arregui v. Gallegos-Main, 153 Idaho 801, 804 , 291 P.3d 1000, 1003 (2012)). 2020STANDARD OF REVIEW “On appeal from the grant of a motion for summary judgment, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the district court originally ruling on the motion.” Mattox v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 157 Idaho 468, 472 , 337 P.3d 627, 631 (2014) (quoting Arregui v. Gallegos-Main, 153 Idaho 801, 804 , 291 P.3d 1000, 1003 (2012)). | 20 | 21 |
Tiffany Ann Marie Fragnella v. Robert B. Petrovich, Jr.green2 sentences2025“On appeal from the grant of a motion for summary judgment, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the district court originally ruling on the motion.” Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 271 , 281 P.3d 103, 108 (2012) (citation omitted). 2025“On appeal from the grant of a motion for summary judgment, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the district court originally ruling on the motion.” Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 271 , 281 P.3d 103, 108 (2012) (citation omitted). | 19 | 24 |
Shawver v. Huckleberry Estates, L.L.C.green2 sentences2012Shawver v. Huckleberry Estates, LLC, 140 Idaho 354, 360 , 93 P.3d 685, 691 (2004) (internal citations omitted). 2012Shawver v. Huckleberry Estates, LLC, 140 Idaho 354, 360 , 93 P.3d 685, 691 (2004) (internal citations omitted). | 5 | 5 |
Eldridge v. Westgreen2 sentences2021Eldridge v. West, 166 Idaho 303 , ___, 458 P.3d 172 , 177 (2020) (citing La Bella Vita, LLC v. Shuler, 158 Idaho 799 , 804–05, 353 P.3d 420 , 425–26 (2015)). 2021Eldridge v. West, 166 Idaho 303 , ___, 458 P.3d 172 , 177 (2020) (citing La Bella Vita, LLC v. Shuler, 158 Idaho 799 , 804–05, 353 P.3d 420 , 425–26 (2015)). | 2 | 3 |
Mattox v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc.green2 sentences2020STANDARD OF REVIEW “On appeal from the grant of a motion for summary judgment, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the district court originally ruling on the motion.” Mattox v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 157 Idaho 468, 472 , 337 P.3d 627, 631 (2014) (quoting Arregui v. Gallegos-Main, 153 Idaho 801, 804 , 291 P.3d 1000, 1003 (2012)). 2020STANDARD OF REVIEW “On appeal from the grant of a motion for summary judgment, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the district court originally ruling on the motion.” Mattox v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 157 Idaho 468, 472 , 337 P.3d 627, 631 (2014) (quoting Arregui v. Gallegos-Main, 153 Idaho 801, 804 , 291 P.3d 1000, 1003 (2012)). | 2 | 2 |
John Wickel v. David J. Chamberlain, D.O.green2 sentences2020Motion to Reconsider “[W]hen reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the lower court in deciding the motion for reconsideration.” Wickel v. Chamberlain, 159 Idaho 532, 536 , 363 P.3d 854, 858 (2015) (quoting Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 276 , 281 P.3d 103, 113 (2012)). 2020Motion to Reconsider “[W]hen reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the lower court in deciding the motion for reconsideration.” Wickel v. Chamberlain, 159 Idaho 532, 536 , 363 P.3d 854, 858 (2015) (quoting Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 276 , 281 P.3d 103, 113 (2012)). | 2 | 2 |
Nelson v. Kaufmangreen2 sentences2020STANDARD OF REVIEW “On appeal from the grant of a motion for summary judgment, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the district court originally ruling on the motion.” Nelson v. Kaufman, 166 Idaho 270, 274 , 458 P.3d 139, 143 (2020) (quoting Samples v. Hanson, 161 Idaho 179 , 181– 82, 384 P.3d 943 , 945–46 (2016)). 2020STANDARD OF REVIEW “On appeal from the grant of a motion for summary judgment, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the district court originally ruling on the motion.” Nelson v. Kaufman, 166 Idaho 270, 274 , 458 P.3d 139, 143 (2020) (quoting Samples v. Hanson, 161 Idaho 179 , 181– 82, 384 P.3d 943 , 945–46 (2016)). | 2 | 2 |
Bybee v. Gormangreen2 sentences2015Bybee v. Gorman, 157 Idaho 169, 173 , 335 P.3d 14, 18 (2014). “[W]hen reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the lower court in deciding the motion for reconsideration.” Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 276 , 281 P.3d 103, 113 (2012). 2015Bybee v. Gorman, 157 Idaho 169, 173 , 335 P.3d 14, 18 (2014). “[W]hen reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the lower court in deciding the motion for reconsideration.” Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 276 , 281 P.3d 103, 113 (2012). | 2 | 2 |
Irina N. Shea v. Kevic Corporationgreen2 sentences2015Thus, “when reviewing the grant or denial of a motion for reconsideration following the grant of summary judgment, this Court must determine whether the evidence presented a genuine issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment.” Id.; see also Shea v. Kevic Corp., 156 Idaho 540, 545 , 328 P.3d 520, 525 (2014). 2015Thus, “when reviewing the grant or denial of a motion for reconsideration following the grant of summary judgment, this Court must determine whether the evidence presented a genuine issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment.” Id.; see also Shea v. Kevic Corp., 156 Idaho 540, 545 , 328 P.3d 520, 525 (2014). | 2 | 2 |
David Samples v. Dr. Ray W. Hansongreen2 sentences2020STANDARD OF REVIEW “On appeal from the grant of a motion for summary judgment, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the district court originally ruling on the motion.” Nelson v. Kaufman, 166 Idaho 270, 274 , 458 P.3d 139, 143 (2020) (quoting Samples v. Hanson, 161 Idaho 179 , 181– 82, 384 P.3d 943 , 945–46 (2016)). 2020STANDARD OF REVIEW “On appeal from the grant of a motion for summary judgment, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the district court originally ruling on the motion.” Nelson v. Kaufman, 166 Idaho 270, 274 , 458 P.3d 139, 143 (2020) (quoting Samples v. Hanson, 161 Idaho 179 , 181– 82, 384 P.3d 943 , 945–46 (2016)). | 1 | 4 |
Murphy v. Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of Tennesseegreen2 sentences2023Co. of Tenn., 139 Idaho 330, 331 , 78 P.3d 766, 767 (2003) (last alteration in original). “[W]hen reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the lower court in deciding the motion for reconsideration.” Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 276 , 281 P.3d 103, 113 (2012). 4 III. 2023Co. of Tenn., 139 Idaho 330, 331 , 78 P.3d 766, 767 (2003) (last alteration in original). “[W]hen reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the lower court in deciding the motion for reconsideration.” Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 276 , 281 P.3d 103, 113 (2012). 4 III. | 1 | 1 |
Arambarri v. Armstronggreen2 sentences2022“If the evidence reveals no disputed issues of material fact, then only a question of law remains, over which this Court exercises free review.” Arambarri v. Armstrong, 152 Idaho 734, 738 , 274 P.3d 1249, 1253 (2012) (quoting Watson v. Weick, 141 Idaho 500, 504 , 112 P.3d 788, 792 (2005)). 5 “When reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the lower court in deciding the motion for reconsideration.” Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 276 , 281 P.3d 103, 113 (2012). 2022“If the evidence reveals no disputed issues of material fact, then only a question of law remains, over which this Court exercises free review.” Arambarri v. Armstrong, 152 Idaho 734, 738 , 274 P.3d 1249, 1253 (2012) (quoting Watson v. Weick, 141 Idaho 500, 504 , 112 P.3d 788, 792 (2005)). 5 “When reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the lower court in deciding the motion for reconsideration.” Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 276 , 281 P.3d 103, 113 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
Watson v. Weickgreen2 sentences2022“If the evidence reveals no disputed issues of material fact, then only a question of law remains, over which this Court exercises free review.” Arambarri v. Armstrong, 152 Idaho 734, 738 , 274 P.3d 1249, 1253 (2012) (quoting Watson v. Weick, 141 Idaho 500, 504 , 112 P.3d 788, 792 (2005)). 5 “When reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the lower court in deciding the motion for reconsideration.” Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 276 , 281 P.3d 103, 113 (2012). 2022“If the evidence reveals no disputed issues of material fact, then only a question of law remains, over which this Court exercises free review.” Arambarri v. Armstrong, 152 Idaho 734, 738 , 274 P.3d 1249, 1253 (2012) (quoting Watson v. Weick, 141 Idaho 500, 504 , 112 P.3d 788, 792 (2005)). 5 “When reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the lower court in deciding the motion for reconsideration.” Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 276 , 281 P.3d 103, 113 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Mocabeegreen2 sentences2021“Following a bench trial, this Court’s review is limited to ascertaining whether the evidence supports the findings of fact, and whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of law.” Wilson v. Mocabee, 167 Idaho 59 , 467 P.3d 423, 428 (2020) (quoting Mortensen v. Berian, 163 Idaho 47 , 50, 408 P.3d 45 , 48 (2017)). 2021“Following a bench trial, this Court’s review is limited to ascertaining whether the evidence supports the findings of fact, and whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of law.” Wilson v. Mocabee, 167 Idaho 59 , 467 P.3d 423, 428 (2020) (quoting Mortensen v. Berian, 163 Idaho 47 , 50, 408 P.3d 45 , 48 (2017)). | 1 | 1 |
MacKay v. Four Rivers Packing Co.green2 sentences2020“Summary judgment is appropriate where the nonmoving party bearing the burden of proof fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case.” Mackay v. Four Rivers Packing Co., 145 Idaho 408, 410 , 179 P.3d 1064, 1066 (2008). “[W]hen reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the lower court in deciding the motion for reconsideration.” Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 276 , 281 P.3d 103, 113 (2012). 2020“Summary judgment is appropriate where the nonmoving party bearing the burden of proof fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case.” Mackay v. Four Rivers Packing Co., 145 Idaho 408, 410 , 179 P.3d 1064, 1066 (2008). “[W]hen reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the lower court in deciding the motion for reconsideration.” Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 276 , 281 P.3d 103, 113 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
Tiller White, LLC v. Canyon Outdoor Media, LLCgreen2 sentences2020Tiller White, LLC v. Canyon Outdoor Media, LLC, 160 Idaho 417, 419 , 374 P.3d 580, 582 (2016). “[W]hen reviewing a [district] court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the lower court in deciding the motion for reconsideration.” Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 276 , 281 P.3d 103, 113 (2012). 2020Tiller White, LLC v. Canyon Outdoor Media, LLC, 160 Idaho 417, 419 , 374 P.3d 580, 582 (2016). “[W]hen reviewing a [district] court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the lower court in deciding the motion for reconsideration.” Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 276 , 281 P.3d 103, 113 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
AED, Inc. v. KDC Investments, LLCgreen2 sentences2018This Court exercises free review if “the decision turned on a question of law.” AED, Inc. v. KDC Investments, LLC, 155 Idaho 159, 163 , 307 P.3d 176, 180 (2013). 1. 2018This Court exercises free review if “the decision turned on a question of law.” AED, Inc. v. KDC Investments, LLC, 155 Idaho 159, 163 , 307 P.3d 176, 180 (2013). 1. | 1 | 1 |
Dulaney v. St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Centergreen2 sentences2017Ctr., 137 Idaho 160, 163 , 45 P.3d 816, 819 (2002). “[W]hen reviewing a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the lower court in deciding the motion for reconsideration.” Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 276 , 281 P.3d 103, 113 (2012). 2017Ctr., 137 Idaho 160, 163 , 45 P.3d 816, 819 (2002). “[W]hen reviewing a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the lower court in deciding the motion for reconsideration.” Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 276 , 281 P.3d 103, 113 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
Foster v. Traulgreen2 sentences2006Foster v. Traul, 141 Idaho 890, 892 , 120 P.3d 278, 280 (2005) (citations omitted). 2006Foster v. Traul, 141 Idaho 890, 892 , 120 P.3d 278, 280 (2005) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Turcott v. Estate of Bates
green
2 sentences2021“However, this Court exercises free review over the district judge’s conclusions of law.” Turcott, 165 Idaho at 188 , 443 P.3d at 202 . “[W]hen reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the lower court in deciding the motion for reconsideration.” Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 276 , 281 P.3d 103, 113 (2012). 2021“However, this Court exercises free review over the district judge’s conclusions of law.” Turcott, 165 Idaho at 188 , 443 P.3d at 202 . “[W]hen reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the lower court in deciding the motion for reconsideration.” Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 276 , 281 P.3d 103, 113 (2012). | 2 | 2019–2021 |
Berkshire Investments, LLC v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2019Questions of law are reviewed de novo , and "[w]hether an action is barred by res judicata is a question of law." Berkshire Invs. , 153 Idaho at 80 , 278 P.3d at 950 . "[W]hen reviewing a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the lower court in deciding the motion for reconsideration." Fragnella v. Petrovich , 153 Idaho 266 , 276, 281 P.3d 103 , 113 (2012). 2019Questions of law are reviewed de novo , and "[w]hether an action is barred by res judicata is a question of law." Berkshire Invs. , 153 Idaho at 80 , 278 P.3d at 950 . "[W]hen reviewing a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the lower court in deciding the motion for reconsideration." Fragnella v. Petrovich , 153 Idaho 266 , 276, 281 P.3d 103 , 113 (2012). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
PHH Mortgage Services Corp. v. Perreira
green
2 sentences2019Id. 2019Id. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Fisk v. McDonald
green
1 sentence2022“Likewise, when reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the lower court in deciding the motion for reconsideration.” Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
La Bella Vita v. Amanda Shuler
green
2 sentences2021Eldridge v. West, 166 Idaho 303 , ___, 458 P.3d 172 , 177 (2020) (citing La Bella Vita, LLC v. Shuler, 158 Idaho 799 , 804–05, 353 P.3d 420 , 425–26 (2015)). 2021Eldridge v. West, 166 Idaho 303 , ___, 458 P.3d 172 , 177 (2020) (citing La Bella Vita, LLC v. Shuler, 158 Idaho 799 , 804–05, 353 P.3d 420 , 425–26 (2015)). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
McCoy v. Lyons
green
1 sentence2020Id. “[W]hen reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the lower court in deciding the motion for reconsideration.” Wickel v. Chamberlain, 159 Idaho 532, 536 , 363 P.3d 854, 858 (2015) (citing Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 276 , 281 P.3d 103, 113 (2012)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Massey Ex Rel. Massey v. Conagra Foods, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020In other words, “when the district court grants summary judgment and then denies a motion for reconsideration, this Court must determine whether the evidence presented a genuine issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment.” Massey, 156 Idaho at 480 , 328 P.3d at 460 (quoting Bremer, LLC v. E. 2020In other words, “when the district court grants summary judgment and then denies a motion for reconsideration, this Court must determine whether the evidence presented a genuine issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment.” Massey, 156 Idaho at 480 , 328 P.3d at 460 (quoting Bremer, LLC v. E. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.