doctrines claim (Idaho) · Go Syfert
← Idaho issues

doctrines claim in Idaho

6 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2025 2 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Klaue v. Herngreen
idaho · 1999 · cited in 4 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2009–2025
2 sentences

2025“The first test applies when ‘the other case has gone to judgment, in which event the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion may bar additional litigation.’” Slavens v. Slavens, 161 Idaho 198, 202 , 384 P.3d 962, 966 (2016) (quoting Klaue, 133 Idaho at 440 , 988 P.2d at 214 ).

2025“The first test applies when ‘the other case has gone to judgment, in which event the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion may bar additional litigation.’” Slavens v. Slavens, 161 Idaho 198, 202 , 384 P.3d 962, 966 (2016) (quoting Klaue, 133 Idaho at 440 , 988 P.2d at 214 ).

14
James Adam Slavens v. Melanie Slavensgreen
idaho · 2016 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
2 sentences

2025“The first test applies when ‘the other case has gone to judgment, in which event the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion may bar additional litigation.’” Slavens v. Slavens, 161 Idaho 198, 202 , 384 P.3d 962, 966 (2016) (quoting Klaue, 133 Idaho at 440 , 988 P.2d at 214 ).

2025“The first test applies when ‘the other case has gone to judgment, in which event the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion may bar additional litigation.’” Slavens v. Slavens, 161 Idaho 198, 202 , 384 P.3d 962, 966 (2016) (quoting Klaue, 133 Idaho at 440 , 988 P.2d at 214 ).

11
Wing v. Amalgamated Sugar Co.green
idahoctapp · 1984 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
2 sentences

1999See Wing v. Amalgamated Sugar, 106 Idaho 905, 908 , 684 P.2d 307, 310 (Ct.App.1984); cf. Roberts v. Hollandsworth, 101 Idaho 522 , 616 P.2d 1058 (1980) (holding that state action was precluded by a judgment entered in federal court).

1999See Wing v. Amalgamated Sugar, 106 Idaho 905, 908 , 684 P.2d 307, 310 (Ct.App.1984); cf. Roberts v. Hollandsworth, 101 Idaho 522 , 616 P.2d 1058 (1980) (holding that state action was precluded by a judgment entered in federal court).

11
Aldape v. Akinsgreen
idahoctapp · 1983 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984
2 sentences

1984See Aldape v. Akins, 105 Idaho 254 , 668 P.2d 130 (Ct.App.1983); cf. Roberts v. Hollandsworth, 101 Idaho 522 , 616 P.2d 1058 (1980) (holding state court action precluded by federal court judgment).

1984See Aldape v. Akins, 105 Idaho 254 , 668 P.2d 130 (Ct.App.1983); cf. Roberts v. Hollandsworth, 101 Idaho 522 , 616 P.2d 1058 (1980) (holding state court action precluded by federal court judgment).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Roberts v. Hollandsworth green
idaho · 1980
2 sentences

1999See Wing v. Amalgamated Sugar, 106 Idaho 905, 908 , 684 P.2d 307, 310 (Ct.App.1984); cf. Roberts v. Hollandsworth, 101 Idaho 522 , 616 P.2d 1058 (1980) (holding that state action was precluded by a judgment entered in federal court).

1999See Wing v. Amalgamated Sugar, 106 Idaho 905, 908 , 684 P.2d 307, 310 (Ct.App.1984); cf. Roberts v. Hollandsworth, 101 Idaho 522 , 616 P.2d 1058 (1980) (holding that state action was precluded by a judgment entered in federal court).

21984–1999

Statutes the citing opinions construe

ID § Idaho Code § 12-121 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 54 (1919–2026) IL 51 (1960–2025) IN 29 (1986–2026) TX 21 (1968–2025) NY 19 (1938–2024) CO 18 (1971–2026) OR 14 (1994–2025) FL 14 (1963–2025) MO 14 (1965–2017) OH 12 (1997–2025) WI 11 (1966–2023) MS 11 (1960–2013) NE 11 (1889–2024) NC 9 (1973–2026) AR 8 (1969–2021) GA 8 (1959–2019) AZ 8 (1979–2023) WA 8 (1934–2026) PA 7 (1890–2016) OK 7 (1993–2018) MI 7 (1961–2020) MA 7 (1983–2025) UT 6 (1989–2025) ID 6 (1984–2025) WV 6 (1990–2026) CT 6 (1974–2005) MD 4 (1961–2001) NM 4 (1995–2021) SC 4 (2012–2023) WY 4 (1988–2019) MT 4 (1998–2021) ND 4 (1996–2022) NH 3 (1966–2003) TN 3 (1976–2012) KS 3 (1958–2019) DE 3 (2017–2022) VT 3 (2006–2019) NV 3 (1994–2013) HI 2 (2004–2012)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check