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 2 courts 1993–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Foster v. City of St. Anthonygreen2 sentences2020Anthony, 122 Idaho 883, 888 , 841 P.2d 413, 418 (1992)). 2020Anthony, 122 Idaho 883, 888 , 841 P.2d 413, 418 (1992)). | 1 | 1 |
Dunham v. Hackney Airpark, Inc.green2 sentences2006As to the first element of this test, [t]he offer to dedicate may be made in a number of ways, including the act of recording or filing a subdivision plat depicting the specific areas subject to dedication, so long as there is a clear and unequivocal indication the owner intends to dedicate the land as depicted____ In determining whether the owner intended to offer the land for dedication, the court must examine the plat, as well as “the surrounding circumstances and conditions of the development and sale of lots.” Sun Valley Land & Minerals, Inc., 138 Idaho at 548 , 66 P.3d at 803 (quoting Du 2006As to the first element of this test, [t]he offer to dedicate may be made in a number of ways, including the act of recording or filing a subdivision plat depicting the specific areas subject to dedication, so long as there is a clear and unequivocal indication the owner intends to dedicate the land as depicted____ In determining whether the owner intended to offer the land for dedication, the court must examine the plat, as well as “the surrounding circumstances and conditions of the development and sale of lots.” Sun Valley Land & Minerals, Inc., 138 Idaho at 548 , 66 P.3d at 803 (quoting Du | 1 | 1 |
State v. Buzzardgreen2 sentences1993State v. Buzzard, 110 Idaho 800, 802, 718 P.2d 1238, 1240 (Ct.App.1986). *655 We exercise free review of the trial court’s decision on the first element of the test — the determination of the testimony’s relevance — because relevancy is not a factual issue nor a matter of judicial discretion. 1993State v. Buzzard, 110 Idaho 800, 802, 718 P.2d 1238, 1240 (Ct.App.1986). *655 We exercise free review of the trial court’s decision on the first element of the test — the determination of the testimony’s relevance — because relevancy is not a factual issue nor a matter of judicial discretion. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Maylettgreen2 sentences1993State v. Raudebaugh, 124 Idaho 758 , 864 P.2d 596 (1993), petition for review pending-, State v. Maylett, 108 Idaho 671, 674 , 701 P.2d 291, 294 (Ct.App.1985) (Burnett, J., concurring). 1993State v. Raudebaugh, 124 Idaho 758 , 864 P.2d 596 (1993), petition for review pending-, State v. Maylett, 108 Idaho 671, 674 , 701 P.2d 291, 294 (Ct.App.1985) (Burnett, J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ticor Title Co. v. Stanion
green
2 sentences2020Ticor, 144 Idaho at 124 . 2020Because Gateway was not a party to the first suit, we examine whether Gateway was in privity with Neptune or Neptune Industries to satisfy the first element of claim preclusion. 8 “To be privies, a person not a party to the former action must ‘derive[] his interest from one who was a party to it, that is, . . . he [must be] in privity with a party to that judgment.’ ” Id. (quoting Foster v. Cty. of St. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Jones v. Healthsouth Treasure Valley Hospital
green
2 sentences2016On the morning of the surgery, Mr. Wainio signed a fourth form titled “Syringa Surgery Center Consent for Operation, Anesthesia or Other Procedures.” It included a statement, “I am awai'e of my physicians’ [sic] ownership in the surgery center and am aware that I may have surgery or treatment performed at any other facility where my surgeon has privileges.” The first element of the doctrine of apparent authority is “conduct by the principal that would lead a person to reasonably believe that another person acts on the principal’s behalf.” Jones, 147 Idaho at 116 , 206 P.3d at 480 . 2016On the morning of the surgery, Mr. Wainio signed a fourth form titled “Syringa Surgery Center Consent for Operation, Anesthesia or Other Procedures.” It included a statement, “I am awai'e of my physicians’ [sic] ownership in the surgery center and am aware that I may have surgery or treatment performed at any other facility where my surgeon has privileges.” The first element of the doctrine of apparent authority is “conduct by the principal that would lead a person to reasonably believe that another person acts on the principal’s behalf.” Jones, 147 Idaho at 116 , 206 P.3d at 480 . | 2 | 2016–2016 |
SUN VALLEY LAND AND MINERALS v. Hawkes
green
2 sentences2006As to the first element of this test, [t]he offer to dedicate may be made in a number of ways, including the act of recording or filing a subdivision plat depicting the specific areas subject to dedication, so long as there is a clear and unequivocal indication the owner intends to dedicate the land as depicted____ In determining whether the owner intended to offer the land for dedication, the court must examine the plat, as well as “the surrounding circumstances and conditions of the development and sale of lots.” Sun Valley Land & Minerals, Inc., 138 Idaho at 548 , 66 P.3d at 803 (quoting Du 2006As to the first element of this test, [t]he offer to dedicate may be made in a number of ways, including the act of recording or filing a subdivision plat depicting the specific areas subject to dedication, so long as there is a clear and unequivocal indication the owner intends to dedicate the land as depicted____ In determining whether the owner intended to offer the land for dedication, the court must examine the plat, as well as “the surrounding circumstances and conditions of the development and sale of lots.” Sun Valley Land & Minerals, Inc., 138 Idaho at 548 , 66 P.3d at 803 (quoting Du | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Raudebaugh
green
2 sentences1993State v. Raudebaugh, 124 Idaho 758 , 864 P.2d 596 (1993), petition for review pending-, State v. Maylett, 108 Idaho 671, 674 , 701 P.2d 291, 294 (Ct.App.1985) (Burnett, J., concurring). 1993State v. Raudebaugh, 124 Idaho 758 , 864 P.2d 596 (1993), petition for review pending-, State v. Maylett, 108 Idaho 671, 674 , 701 P.2d 291, 294 (Ct.App.1985) (Burnett, J., concurring). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.