6 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hindmarsh v. Mockgreen2 sentences2025Under the principles of claim preclusion, “a valid final judgment rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is an absolute bar to a subsequent action between the same parties upon the same claim.” Id. 2007Under the principles of claim preclusion, a valid final judgment rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is an absolute bar to a subsequent action between the same parties upon the same claim.” Hindmarsh v. Mock, 138 Idaho 92, 94 , 57 P.3d 803, 805 (2002). | 3 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Blinzler v. Andrews
green
2 sentences1985Towles, would later, in rendering a decision in Blinzler v. Andrews, 95 Idaho 769 , 519 P.2d 438 (1974) (Blinzler II), not hesitate to pass judgment on the majority opinion in Blinzler I: The undersigned has made an exhaustive review of the record in the trial court as well as of the opinion of the majority on appeal and trusts that the principles of waiver announced in the majority opinion would not long remain the rule of law in this state. 1 Blinzler I this day goes into the well-deserved state of oblivion forecast for it by Judge Towles. 1985Towles, would later, in rendering a decision in Blinzler v. Andrews, 95 Idaho 769 , 519 P.2d 438 (1974) (Blinzler II), not hesitate to pass judgment on the majority opinion in Blinzler I: The undersigned has made an exhaustive review of the record in the trial court as well as of the opinion of the majority on appeal and trusts that the principles of waiver announced in the majority opinion would not long remain the rule of law in this state. 1 Blinzler I this day goes into the well-deserved state of oblivion forecast for it by Judge Towles. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Brand S Corp. v. King
green
2 sentences1983In Brand S. Corp. v. King Logging Co., 102 Idaho 731 , 639 P.2d 429 (1981), we stated that waiver is the voluntary, intentional relinquishment of a known right, or advantage, and does not necessarily depend on any new consideration; it must appear, however, that an adversary party has acted in reliance upon such a waiver and altered his position. 1983In Brand S. Corp. v. King Logging Co., 102 Idaho 731 , 639 P.2d 429 (1981), we stated that waiver is the voluntary, intentional relinquishment of a known right, or advantage, and does not necessarily depend on any new consideration; it must appear, however, that an adversary party has acted in reliance upon such a waiver and altered his position. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.