6 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2022 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
McAtee v. Faulkner Land & Livestock, Inc.green2 sentences2022The Mundens argue that the district court abused its discretion in awarding the County attorney fees and costs “in excess of $15,000, well above the $7,500 bond posted by the Mundens.” The Mundens assert that the “recovery of damages, costs[,] and attorney fees occasioned by the temporary restraining order is limited to the amount of the bond.” (Citing McAtee v. Faulkner Land & Livestock, Inc., 113 Idaho 393, 402 , 744 P.2d 121, 130 (Ct. App. 1987).) The Mundens contend that the only exception to this rule “allowing for a collection of fees ‘in excess’ of the bond is where there has been a sho 2022The Mundens argue that the district court abused its discretion in awarding the County attorney fees and costs “in excess of $15,000, well above the $7,500 bond posted by the Mundens.” The Mundens assert that the “recovery of damages, costs[,] and attorney fees occasioned by the temporary restraining order is limited to the amount of the bond.” (Citing McAtee v. Faulkner Land & Livestock, Inc., 113 Idaho 393, 402 , 744 P.2d 121, 130 (Ct. App. 1987).) The Mundens contend that the only exception to this rule “allowing for a collection of fees ‘in excess’ of the bond is where there has been a sho | 2 | 2 |
Taylor v. McNicholsgreen2 sentences2020Ovanes and Socorro moved for summary judgment contending that because the county prosecutor had obtained a search warrant, probable cause existed and therefore a malicious prosecution claim could not proceed.8 To recover under a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must prove “(1) [t]hat there was a prosecution; (2) [t]hat it terminated in favor of the plaintiff; (3) [t]hat the defendant was the prosecutor; (4) [m]alice; (5) [l]ack of probable cause; and (6) [d]amages sustained by the plaintiff.” Taylor v. McNichols, 149 Idaho 826, 843 , 243 P.3d 642, 659 (2010) (italics removed) (quoting 2020Ovanes and Socorro moved for summary judgment contending that because the county prosecutor had obtained a search warrant, probable cause existed and therefore a malicious prosecution claim could not proceed.8 To recover under a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must prove “(1) [t]hat there was a prosecution; (2) [t]hat it terminated in favor of the plaintiff; (3) [t]hat the defendant was the prosecutor; (4) [m]alice; (5) [l]ack of probable cause; and (6) [d]amages sustained by the plaintiff.” Taylor v. McNichols, 149 Idaho 826, 843 , 243 P.3d 642, 659 (2010) (italics removed) (quoting | 2 | 2 |
Badell v. Beeksgreen2 sentences2020Ovanes and Socorro moved for summary judgment contending that because the county prosecutor had obtained a search warrant, probable cause existed and therefore a malicious prosecution claim could not proceed.8 To recover under a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must prove “(1) [t]hat there was a prosecution; (2) [t]hat it terminated in favor of the plaintiff; (3) [t]hat the defendant was the prosecutor; (4) [m]alice; (5) [l]ack of probable cause; and (6) [d]amages sustained by the plaintiff.” Taylor v. McNichols, 149 Idaho 826, 843 , 243 P.3d 642, 659 (2010) (italics removed) (quoting 2020Ovanes and Socorro moved for summary judgment contending that because the county prosecutor had obtained a search warrant, probable cause existed and therefore a malicious prosecution claim could not proceed.8 To recover under a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must prove “(1) [t]hat there was a prosecution; (2) [t]hat it terminated in favor of the plaintiff; (3) [t]hat the defendant was the prosecutor; (4) [m]alice; (5) [l]ack of probable cause; and (6) [d]amages sustained by the plaintiff.” Taylor v. McNichols, 149 Idaho 826, 843 , 243 P.3d 642, 659 (2010) (italics removed) (quoting | 2 | 2 |
Herrold v. Idaho State School for the Deaf & Blindgreen2 sentences2017There are six elements of a malicious prosecution claim: “(1) prosecution of the plaintiff; (2) termination of the prosecution in favor of the plaintiff; (3) that the defendant instigated the prosecution; (4) that the defendant was activated by malice; (5) that there was a lack of probable cause to arrest the plaintiff; and (6) that the plaintiff sustained damages.” Herrold v. Idaho State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind, 112 Idaho 410, 411-12 , 732 P.2d 379, 380-81 (Ct. App. 1987). 2017There are six elements of a malicious prosecution claim: “(1) prosecution of the plaintiff; (2) termination of the prosecution in favor of the plaintiff; (3) that the defendant instigated the prosecution; (4) that the defendant was activated by malice; (5) that there was a lack of probable cause to arrest the plaintiff; and (6) that the plaintiff sustained damages.” Herrold v. Idaho State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind, 112 Idaho 410, 411-12 , 732 P.2d 379, 380-81 (Ct. App. 1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stohr v. Donahue
green
2 sentences1987Stohr v. Donahue, 215 Kan. 528 , 527 P.2d 983 (1974). 1987Stohr v. Donahue, 215 Kan. 528 , 527 P.2d 983 (1974). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.