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.
6 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 2012–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Glengary-Gamlin Protective Ass'n v. Birdgreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., Glengary-Gamlin Protective Ass’n, Inc., 106 Idaho at 87 , 675 P.2d at 347 . 2021See, e.g., Glengary-Gamlin Protective Ass’n, Inc., 106 Idaho at 87 , 675 P.2d at 347 . | 3 | 3 |
American Civil Liberties Union v. City of Albuquerquegreen2 sentences2021Quality, 919 P.2d 1168 (Or. 1996)). 6 Sierra Club v. Dep’t of Transp., 167 P.3d 292, 312 (Haw. 2007) (acknowledging borrowed justiciability requirements from federal framework “based on this court’s prudential rules of judicial self-governance”); Pence v. State, 652 N.E.2d 486, 488 (Ind. 1995); ACLU of New Mexico v. City of Albuquerque, 188 P.3d 1222 , 1226–27 (N.M. 2008) (“ ‘While we recognize that standing in our state courts does not have the constitutional dimensions that are present in federal court, New Mexico’s standing jurisprudence indicates that our state courts have long been guided 2021Quality, 919 P.2d 1168 (Or. 1996)). 6 Sierra Club v. Dep’t of Transp., 167 P.3d 292, 312 (Haw. 2007) (acknowledging borrowed justiciability requirements from federal framework “based on this court’s prudential rules of judicial self-governance”); Pence v. State, 652 N.E.2d 486, 488 (Ind. 1995); ACLU of New Mexico v. City of Albuquerque, 188 P.3d 1222 , 1226–27 (N.M. 2008) (“ ‘While we recognize that standing in our state courts does not have the constitutional dimensions that are present in federal court, New Mexico’s standing jurisprudence indicates that our state courts have long been guided | 3 | 3 |
Bear Lake Education Ass'n v. Board of Trustees of Bear Lake School District No. 33green2 sentences2021See, e.g., Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (“Though some of [the federal standing] elements express merely prudential considerations that are part of judicial self-government, the core component of [federal] standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.”); 1 This Court observed in Bear Lake Educational Association, by and through Belnap v. Board of Trustees of Bear Lake School District No. 33, 116 Idaho 443, 448 , 776 P.2d 452, 457 (1989), that “some elements of standing in the federal system are colored by the constitu 2021See, e.g., Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (“Though some of [the federal standing] elements express merely prudential considerations that are part of judicial self-government, the core component of [federal] standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.”); 1 This Court observed in Bear Lake Educational Association, by and through Belnap v. Board of Trustees of Bear Lake School District No. 33, 116 Idaho 443, 448 , 776 P.2d 452, 457 (1989), that “some elements of standing in the federal system are colored by the constitu | 3 | 3 |
Miles v. Idaho Power Co. Ex Rel. Evansgreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., Miles v. Idaho Power Co., 116 Idaho 635, 641 , 778 P.2d 757, 763 (1989) (referring to “the case or controversy requirement of standing”). 2021See, e.g., Miles v. Idaho Power Co., 116 Idaho 635, 641 , 778 P.2d 757, 763 (1989) (referring to “the case or controversy requirement of standing”). | 3 | 3 |
Sierra Club v. Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2021Quality, 919 P.2d 1168 (Or. 1996)). 6 Sierra Club v. Dep’t of Transp., 167 P.3d 292, 312 (Haw. 2007) (acknowledging borrowed justiciability requirements from federal framework “based on this court’s prudential rules of judicial self-governance”); Pence v. State, 652 N.E.2d 486, 488 (Ind. 1995); ACLU of New Mexico v. City of Albuquerque, 188 P.3d 1222 , 1226–27 (N.M. 2008) (“ ‘While we recognize that standing in our state courts does not have the constitutional dimensions that are present in federal court, New Mexico’s standing jurisprudence indicates that our state courts have long been guided 2021Quality, 919 P.2d 1168 (Or. 1996)). 6 Sierra Club v. Dep’t of Transp., 167 P.3d 292, 312 (Haw. 2007) (acknowledging borrowed justiciability requirements from federal framework “based on this court’s prudential rules of judicial self-governance”); Pence v. State, 652 N.E.2d 486, 488 (Ind. 1995); ACLU of New Mexico v. City of Albuquerque, 188 P.3d 1222 , 1226–27 (N.M. 2008) (“ ‘While we recognize that standing in our state courts does not have the constitutional dimensions that are present in federal court, New Mexico’s standing jurisprudence indicates that our state courts have long been guided | 3 | 3 |
Pence v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Quality, 919 P.2d 1168 (Or. 1996)). 6 Sierra Club v. Dep’t of Transp., 167 P.3d 292, 312 (Haw. 2007) (acknowledging borrowed justiciability requirements from federal framework “based on this court’s prudential rules of judicial self-governance”); Pence v. State, 652 N.E.2d 486, 488 (Ind. 1995); ACLU of New Mexico v. City of Albuquerque, 188 P.3d 1222 , 1226–27 (N.M. 2008) (“ ‘While we recognize that standing in our state courts does not have the constitutional dimensions that are present in federal court, New Mexico’s standing jurisprudence indicates that our state courts have long been guided 2021Quality, 919 P.2d 1168 (Or. 1996)). 6 Sierra Club v. Dep’t of Transp., 167 P.3d 292, 312 (Haw. 2007) (acknowledging borrowed justiciability requirements from federal framework “based on this court’s prudential rules of judicial self-governance”); Pence v. State, 652 N.E.2d 486, 488 (Ind. 1995); ACLU of New Mexico v. City of Albuquerque, 188 P.3d 1222 , 1226–27 (N.M. 2008) (“ ‘While we recognize that standing in our state courts does not have the constitutional dimensions that are present in federal court, New Mexico’s standing jurisprudence indicates that our state courts have long been guided | 3 | 3 |
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlifegreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (“Though some of [the federal standing] elements express merely prudential considerations that are part of judicial self-government, the core component of [federal] standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.”); 1 This Court observed in Bear Lake Educational Association, by and through Belnap v. Board of Trustees of Bear Lake School District No. 33, 116 Idaho 443, 448 , 776 P.2d 452, 457 (1989), that “some elements of standing in the federal system are colored by the constitu 2021See, e.g., Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (“Though some of [the federal standing] elements express merely prudential considerations that are part of judicial self-government, the core component of [federal] standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.”); 1 This Court observed in Bear Lake Educational Association, by and through Belnap v. Board of Trustees of Bear Lake School District No. 33, 116 Idaho 443, 448 , 776 P.2d 452, 457 (1989), that “some elements of standing in the federal system are colored by the constitu | 2 | 2 |
Regan v. Denneygreen2 sentences2025Regan v. Denney, 165 Idaho 15, 21 , 437 P.3d 15, 21 (2019). 2025Regan v. Denney, 165 Idaho 15, 21 , 437 P.3d 15, 21 (2019). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Local No. 290 v. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
green
2 sentences2021Quality, 919 P.2d 1168 (Or. 1996)). 6 Sierra Club v. Dep’t of Transp., 167 P.3d 292, 312 (Haw. 2007) (acknowledging borrowed justiciability requirements from federal framework “based on this court’s prudential rules of judicial self-governance”); Pence v. State, 652 N.E.2d 486, 488 (Ind. 1995); ACLU of New Mexico v. City of Albuquerque, 188 P.3d 1222 , 1226–27 (N.M. 2008) (“ ‘While we recognize that standing in our state courts does not have the constitutional dimensions that are present in federal court, New Mexico’s standing jurisprudence indicates that our state courts have long been guided 2021Quality, 919 P.2d 1168 (Or. 1996)). 6 Sierra Club v. Dep’t of Transp., 167 P.3d 292, 312 (Haw. 2007) (acknowledging borrowed justiciability requirements from federal framework “based on this court’s prudential rules of judicial self-governance”); Pence v. State, 652 N.E.2d 486, 488 (Ind. 1995); ACLU of New Mexico v. City of Albuquerque, 188 P.3d 1222 , 1226–27 (N.M. 2008) (“ ‘While we recognize that standing in our state courts does not have the constitutional dimensions that are present in federal court, New Mexico’s standing jurisprudence indicates that our state courts have long been guided | 3 | 2021–2021 |
Tracy Tucker v. State of Idaho
green
1 sentence2019Under the traditional federal standing analysis, “the plaintiff must show (1) an injury in fact, (2) a sufficient causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Id. (internal quotations and alteration omitted). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Summers v. Earth Island Institute
green
2 sentences2012Summers, 555 U.S. at 492-93 , 129 S.Ct. at 1148-49 , 173 L.Ed.2d at 8-9 . 2012Summers, 555 U.S. at 492-93 , 129 S.Ct. at 1148-49 , 173 L.Ed.2d at 8-9 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.