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 1985–1991 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pierstorff v. Gray's Auto Shopgreen2 sentences1991Called the Pierstorff rule or Pierstorff doctrine, it is as stated by the Chief Justice in Systems Associates, Inc. v. Motorola Communications & Electronics, Inc., 116 Idaho 615, 621 , 778 P.2d 737, 743 (1989): "An adjudicatory body may not `arbitrarily or capriciously disregard the testimony of a witness unimpeached by any of the modes known to the law, if such testimony does not exceed probability.' Pierstorff v. Gray's Auto Body Shop, 58 Idaho 438, 447-48 , 74 P.2d 171, 175 (1937)." The Chief Justice in Systems Associates went on to add, as is equally so here, "Here the trial court, as the 1991Called the Pierstorff rule or Pierstorff doctrine, it is as stated by the Chief Justice in Systems Associates, Inc. v. Motorola Communications & Electronics, Inc., 116 Idaho 615, 621 , 778 P.2d 737, 743 (1989): "An adjudicatory body may not `arbitrarily or capriciously disregard the testimony of a witness unimpeached by any of the modes known to the law, if such testimony does not exceed probability.' Pierstorff v. Gray's Auto Body Shop, 58 Idaho 438, 447-48 , 74 P.2d 171, 175 (1937)." The Chief Justice in Systems Associates went on to add, as is equally so here, "Here the trial court, as the | 2 | 3 |
Dinneen v. Finchgreen2 sentences1988The Pierstorff rule, Pierstorff v. Gray’s Auto Body Shop, 58 Idaho 438 , 74 P.2d 171 (1937) was heavily relied on as recently as in Dinneen v. Finch, 100 Idaho 620, 626-27 , 603 P.2d 575 (1979). 1988The Pierstorff rule, Pierstorff v. Gray’s Auto Body Shop, 58 Idaho 438 , 74 P.2d 171 (1937) was heavily relied on as recently as in Dinneen v. Finch, 100 Idaho 620, 626-27 , 603 P.2d 575 (1979). | 2 | 3 |
Systems Associates, Inc. v. Motorola Communications & Electronics, Inc.green2 sentences1991Called the Pierstorff rule or Pierstorff doctrine, it is as stated by the Chief Justice in Systems Associates, Inc. v. Motorola Communications & Electronics, Inc., 116 Idaho 615, 621 , 778 P.2d 737, 743 (1989): "An adjudicatory body may not `arbitrarily or capriciously disregard the testimony of a witness unimpeached by any of the modes known to the law, if such testimony does not exceed probability.' Pierstorff v. Gray's Auto Body Shop, 58 Idaho 438, 447-48 , 74 P.2d 171, 175 (1937)." The Chief Justice in Systems Associates went on to add, as is equally so here, "Here the trial court, as the 1991Called the Pierstorff rule or Pierstorff doctrine, it is as stated by the Chief Justice in Systems Associates, Inc. v. Motorola Communications & Electronics, Inc., 116 Idaho 615, 621 , 778 P.2d 737, 743 (1989): "An adjudicatory body may not `arbitrarily or capriciously disregard the testimony of a witness unimpeached by any of the modes known to the law, if such testimony does not exceed probability.' Pierstorff v. Gray's Auto Body Shop, 58 Idaho 438, 447-48 , 74 P.2d 171, 175 (1937)." The Chief Justice in Systems Associates went on to add, as is equally so here, "Here the trial court, as the | 2 | 2 |
Farber v. Stategreen2 sentences1987Nor does the majority recognize that as a Department witness, Mr. Dayley was not impeached as to his credibility in the slightest, and his testimony cannot be ignored under the well-established Pierstorff rule, last cited in Farber v. State, 107 Idaho 823, 824 , 693 P.2d 469, 470 (Ct.App. 1984). 1987Nor does the majority recognize that as a Department witness, Mr. Dayley was not impeached as to his credibility in the slightest, and his testimony cannot be ignored under the well-established Pierstorff rule, last cited in Farber v. State, 107 Idaho 823, 824 , 693 P.2d 469, 470 (Ct.App. 1984). | 2 | 2 |
Sprague v. Caldwell Transportation Inc.green2 sentences1991Sprague v. Caldwell Transp., Inc., 116 Idaho 720, 722 , 779 P.2d 395, 397 (1989); Systems Assoc. v. Motorola Co. & Elec., 116 Idaho 615, 621 , 778 P.2d 737, 743 (1989); Dinneen v. Finch, 100 Idaho 620, 627 , 603 P.2d 575, 582 (1979) (Bakes, C.J., dissenting); Airstream, Inc. v. C.I.T. 1991Sprague v. Caldwell Transp., Inc., 116 Idaho 720, 722 , 779 P.2d 395, 397 (1989); Systems Assoc. v. Motorola Co. & Elec., 116 Idaho 615, 621 , 778 P.2d 737, 743 (1989); Dinneen v. Finch, 100 Idaho 620, 627 , 603 P.2d 575, 582 (1979) (Bakes, C.J., dissenting); Airstream, Inc. v. C.I.T. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Stiborgreen2 sentences1985Accord In re Estate of Stibor, 96 Idaho 162, 164 , 525 P.2d 357, 359 (1974). 1985Accord In re Estate of Stibor, 96 Idaho 162, 164 , 525 P.2d 357, 359 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Swanson v. State
green
2 sentences1991Swanson v. State, 114 Idaho 607 , 759 P.2d 898 (1988); Pierstorff v. Gray's Auto Body Shop, 58 Idaho 438 , 74 P.2d 171 (1937)." 116 Idaho at 621, 778 P.2d at 743 . 1991Swanson v. State, 114 Idaho 607 , 759 P.2d 898 (1988); Pierstorff v. Gray's Auto Body Shop, 58 Idaho 438 , 74 P.2d 171 (1937)." 116 Idaho at 621, 778 P.2d at 743 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |