6 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1961–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Termination of the Parental Rights of Doegreen2 sentences2022“The decision whether to grant a motion to continue trial is within a trial court’s sound discretion.” Int. of Doe I, 166 Idaho 546, 557 , 462 P.3d 74, 85 (2020) (quoting In re Doe (2016- 31), 161 Idaho 393, 397 , 386 P.3d 916, 920 (2016)) (citation omitted). 2022“The decision whether to grant a motion to continue trial is within a trial court’s sound discretion.” Int. of Doe I, 166 Idaho 546, 557 , 462 P.3d 74, 85 (2020) (quoting In re Doe (2016- 31), 161 Idaho 393, 397 , 386 P.3d 916, 920 (2016)) (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
DHW v. John Doegreen2 sentences2022“The decision whether to grant a motion to continue trial is within a trial court’s sound discretion.” Int. of Doe I, 166 Idaho 546, 557 , 462 P.3d 74, 85 (2020) (quoting In re Doe (2016- 31), 161 Idaho 393, 397 , 386 P.3d 916, 920 (2016)) (citation omitted). 2022“The decision whether to grant a motion to continue trial is within a trial court’s sound discretion.” Int. of Doe I, 166 Idaho 546, 557 , 462 P.3d 74, 85 (2020) (quoting In re Doe (2016- 31), 161 Idaho 393, 397 , 386 P.3d 916, 920 (2016)) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Young v. City of Ketchumgreen2 sentences2009A 12(b)(6) motion looks only at the pleadings to determine whether a claim for relief has been stated. 8 Young v. City of Ketchum, 137 Idaho 102, 104 , 44 P.3d 1157, 1159 (2002). 2009A 12(b)(6) motion looks only at the pleadings to determine whether a claim for relief has been stated. 8 Young v. City of Ketchum, 137 Idaho 102, 104 , 44 P.3d 1157, 1159 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
Castle v. Haysgreen2 sentences2009Castle v. Hays, 131 Idaho 373, 374 , 957 P.2d 351, 352 (1998). 2009Castle v. Hays, 131 Idaho 373, 374 , 957 P.2d 351, 352 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nab v. Nab
green
2 sentences2013The court held that it was therefore unable to entertain a motion to modify child support pursuant to Nab v. Nab, 114 Idaho 512 , 757 P.2d 1231 (Ct.App.1988), and that both motions must be dismissed because the Father’s motion to modify child custody was indivisible from his motion to modify child support. 2013The court held that it was therefore unable to entertain a motion to modify child support pursuant to Nab v. Nab, 114 Idaho 512 , 757 P.2d 1231 (Ct.App.1988), and that both motions must be dismissed because the Father’s motion to modify child custody was indivisible from his motion to modify child support. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Roosma v. Moots
green
2 sentences2012Id. at 455 , 112 P.2d at 1002 . 2012Id. at 455 , 112 P.2d at 1002 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Straub v. Smith
green
2 sentences2009Straub v. Smith, 145 Idaho at 71 , 175 P.3d at 760 ; Dunlap v. Cassia Meml. 2009Straub v. Smith, 145 Idaho at 71 , 175 P.3d at 760 ; Dunlap v. Cassia Meml. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
White v. White
green
2 sentences1961In White v. White, 71 Cal.App.2d 390 , 163 P.2d 89 , the court upheld an order relieving the father from the requirement to make support payments so long as the mother continued to act in violation of the decree. 1961In White v. White, 71 Cal.App.2d 390 , 163 P.2d 89 , the court upheld an order relieving the father from the requirement to make support payments so long as the mother continued to act in violation of the decree. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
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.