6 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1954–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ace Realty, Inc. v. Andersongreen2 sentences2007Ace Realty, Inc. v. Anderson, 106 Idaho 742, 751 , 682 P.2d 1289, 1298 (Ct.App.1984). 2007Ace Realty, Inc. v. Anderson, 106 Idaho 742, 751 , 682 P.2d 1289, 1298 (Ct.App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Mario Garcia v. William Bunnellgreen1 sentence2003See Garcia v. Bunnell, 33 F.3d 1193, 1199 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied 514 U.S. 1024 , 115 S.Ct. 1374 , 131 L.Ed.2d 229 (1995) (The mere fact of defense counsel’s future employment with the district attorney’s office did not create an actual conflict.). | 1 | 1 |
Holston v. United States District Courtgreen1 sentence2003See Garcia v. Bunnell, 33 F.3d 1193, 1199 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied 514 U.S. 1024 , 115 S.Ct. 1374 , 131 L.Ed.2d 229 (1995) (The mere fact of defense counsel’s future employment with the district attorney’s office did not create an actual conflict.). | 1 | 1 |
Garcia v. Bunnellgreen1 sentence2003See Garcia v. Bunnell, 33 F.3d 1193, 1199 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied 514 U.S. 1024 , 115 S.Ct. 1374 , 131 L.Ed.2d 229 (1995) (The mere fact of defense counsel’s future employment with the district attorney’s office did not create an actual conflict.). | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Lawlergreen1 sentence2003See Garcia v. Bunnell, 33 F.3d 1193, 1199 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied 514 U.S. 1024 , 115 S.Ct. 1374 , 131 L.Ed.2d 229 (1995) (The mere fact of defense counsel’s future employment with the district attorney’s office did not create an actual conflict.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ross v. Ross
green
2 sentences2021“The mere fact that a claim is disputed or litigated does not render damages ‘unascertainable.’ ” Id. at 277 , 178 P.3d at 642 . 2021“The mere fact that a claim is disputed or litigated does not render damages ‘unascertainable.’ ” Id. at 277 , 178 P.3d at 642 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Stevens
green
2 sentences2013Id. 2013Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Shelton v. Paris
green
2 sentences1962Kendrick v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Co., 182 Kan. 249 , 320 P.2d 1061 ; Mula v. Meyer, 132 Cal.App.2d 279 , 282 P.2d 107 ; Shelton v. Paris, 199 Or. 365 , 261 P.2d 856 . 1962Kendrick v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Co., 182 Kan. 249 , 320 P.2d 1061 ; Mula v. Meyer, 132 Cal.App.2d 279 , 282 P.2d 107 ; Shelton v. Paris, 199 Or. 365 , 261 P.2d 856 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Mula v. Meyer
green
2 sentences1962Kendrick v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Co., 182 Kan. 249 , 320 P.2d 1061 ; Mula v. Meyer, 132 Cal.App.2d 279 , 282 P.2d 107 ; Shelton v. Paris, 199 Or. 365 , 261 P.2d 856 . 1962Kendrick v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Co., 182 Kan. 249 , 320 P.2d 1061 ; Mula v. Meyer, 132 Cal.App.2d 279 , 282 P.2d 107 ; Shelton v. Paris, 199 Or. 365 , 261 P.2d 856 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Kendrick v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad
green
2 sentences1962Kendrick v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Co., 182 Kan. 249 , 320 P.2d 1061 ; Mula v. Meyer, 132 Cal.App.2d 279 , 282 P.2d 107 ; Shelton v. Paris, 199 Or. 365 , 261 P.2d 856 . 1962Kendrick v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Co., 182 Kan. 249 , 320 P.2d 1061 ; Mula v. Meyer, 132 Cal.App.2d 279 , 282 P.2d 107 ; Shelton v. Paris, 199 Or. 365 , 261 P.2d 856 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Bell v. Carlson
green
2 sentences1962This court held in Bell v. Carlson, 75 Idaho 193 , 270 P.2d 420 , that “Contributory negligence is generally a question of fact for the jury, but becomes a question of law for the court when es *16 tablished facts and circumstances permit only one possible conclusion to be drawn by a reasonably 'prudent' man.” In that case this court further held that “The mere fact of a violation of a law of the road is not contributory negligence barring recovery unless such negligence constitutes a proximate contributing cause to the injury.” So, too, while violation of a statute may constitute negligence p 1962This court held in Bell v. Carlson, 75 Idaho 193 , 270 P.2d 420 , that “Contributory negligence is generally a question of fact for the jury, but becomes a question of law for the court when es *16 tablished facts and circumstances permit only one possible conclusion to be drawn by a reasonably 'prudent' man.” In that case this court further held that “The mere fact of a violation of a law of the road is not contributory negligence barring recovery unless such negligence constitutes a proximate contributing cause to the injury.” So, too, while violation of a statute may constitute negligence p | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Washington County v. Stephens
neutral
1 sentence1954In Kelly v. Troy Laundry Co., supra [ 46 Idaho 214 , 267 P. 225 ], the court was considering the absence of a light on the front of a bicycle and quoted with approval from George v. McManus, 27 Cal.App. 414 , 150 P. 73 , as follows: “ ‘While the failure of a person to perform a duty imposed upon him by statute is sufficient evidence of negligence on his part, nevertheless such neglect, however illegal, in the absence of evidence showing it to have been the contributing cause of the injury, furnishes no legal ground for complaint.’ ” In Tendoy v. West, supra, this court, in considering the abse | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Kelly v. Troy Laundry Co.
green
1 sentence1954In Kelly v. Troy Laundry Co., supra [ 46 Idaho 214 , 267 P. 225 ], the court was considering the absence of a light on the front of a bicycle and quoted with approval from George v. McManus, 27 Cal.App. 414 , 150 P. 73 , as follows: “ ‘While the failure of a person to perform a duty imposed upon him by statute is sufficient evidence of negligence on his part, nevertheless such neglect, however illegal, in the absence of evidence showing it to have been the contributing cause of the injury, furnishes no legal ground for complaint.’ ” In Tendoy v. West, supra, this court, in considering the abse | 1 | 1954–1954 |
George v. McManus
green
2 sentences1954In Kelly v. Troy Laundry Co., supra [ 46 Idaho 214 , 267 P. 225 ], the court was considering the absence of a light on the front of a bicycle and quoted with approval from George v. McManus, 27 Cal.App. 414 , 150 P. 73 , as follows: “ ‘While the failure of a person to perform a duty imposed upon him by statute is sufficient evidence of negligence on his part, nevertheless such neglect, however illegal, in the absence of evidence showing it to have been the contributing cause of the injury, furnishes no legal ground for complaint.’ ” In Tendoy v. West, supra, this court, in considering the abse 1954In Kelly v. Troy Laundry Co., supra [ 46 Idaho 214 , 267 P. 225 ], the court was considering the absence of a light on the front of a bicycle and quoted with approval from George v. McManus, 27 Cal.App. 414 , 150 P. 73 , as follows: “ ‘While the failure of a person to perform a duty imposed upon him by statute is sufficient evidence of negligence on his part, nevertheless such neglect, however illegal, in the absence of evidence showing it to have been the contributing cause of the injury, furnishes no legal ground for complaint.’ ” In Tendoy v. West, supra, this court, in considering the abse | 1 | 1954–1954 |
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.