6 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1913–1984 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Koron v. Myers
green
2 sentences1984"By reason of the destruction of the property the rule of law hereinbefore announced discharged each of the parties form further liability under the terms of the agreements." Koron, supra, at 575 , 394 P.2d at 639 . 1984“By reason of the destruction of the property the rule of law hereinbefore announced discharged each of the parties form further liability under the terms of the agreements.” Koron, supra, at 575 , 394 P.2d at 639 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Miller v. Miller
green
2 sentences1976Miller v. Miller, 463 S.W.2d 477 (Tex.Civ.App.1971). 1976Miller v. Miller, 463 S.W.2d 477 (Tex.Civ.App. 1971). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Gem State Lumber Co. v. Union Grain & Elevator Co.
green
2 sentences1958This Court, in Gem State Lumber Co. v. Union Grain & Elevator Co., 47 Idaho 747 , 278 P. 775, 776 , upon invoking the rule of liberal construction of the lien law, held that failure to state the name of the record owner of the property in the claim of lien, was not fatal since it appeared that such owner “was in no manner misled by the mistake, but had been apprised of the lien claim.” Herein it is not indicated whether Mrs. MacFarland is, or was at the time of the trial, a record owner of the property, together with her husband. 1958This Court, in Gem State Lumber Co. v. Union Grain & Elevator Co., 47 Idaho 747 , 278 P. 775, 776 , upon invoking the rule of liberal construction of the lien law, held that failure to state the name of the record owner of the property in the claim of lien, was not fatal since it appeared that such owner “was in no manner misled by the mistake, but had been apprised of the lien claim.” Herein it is not indicated whether Mrs. MacFarland is, or was at the time of the trial, a record owner of the property, together with her husband. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Gloth v. Gloth
green
2 sentences1938“A. No, sir, you said: ‘Your wife should have a little protection supposing you die in a year or two or three; she ought to have something out of the estate.’ ” In Gloth v. Gloth, 154 Va. 511 , 153 S. E. 879 , 71 A. L. 1938“A. No, sir, you said: ‘Your wife should have a little protection supposing you die in a year or two or three; she ought to have something out of the estate.’ ” In Gloth v. Gloth, 154 Va. 511 , 153 S. E. 879 , 71 A. L. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Ryan v. Woodin
green
2 sentences1937(Ryan v. Woodin, 9 Ida. 525 , 75 Pac. 261 ; Oylear v. Oylear, 35 Ida. 732 , 208 Pac. 857 ; Smith v. Faris-Kesl Const. Co., Ltd., 27 Ida. 407, 426 , 150 Pac. 25 ; Just v. Idaho Canal etc. Co., Ltd., 16 Ida. 639, 653 , 102 Pac. 381 , 133 Am. 1937(Ryan v. Woodin, 9 Ida. 525 , 75 Pac. 261 ; Oylear v. Oylear, 35 Ida. 732 , 208 Pac. 857 ; Smith v. Faris-Kesl Const. Co., Ltd., 27 Ida. 407, 426 , 150 Pac. 25 ; Just v. Idaho Canal etc. Co., Ltd., 16 Ida. 639, 653 , 102 Pac. 381 , 133 Am. | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Just v. Idaho Canal & Improvement Co.
green
2 sentences1937(Ryan v. Woodin, 9 Ida. 525 , 75 Pac. 261 ; Oylear v. Oylear, 35 Ida. 732 , 208 Pac. 857 ; Smith v. Faris-Kesl Const. Co., Ltd., 27 Ida. 407, 426 , 150 Pac. 25 ; Just v. Idaho Canal etc. Co., Ltd., 16 Ida. 639, 653 , 102 Pac. 381 , 133 Am. 1937(Ryan v. Woodin, 9 Ida. 525 , 75 Pac. 261 ; Oylear v. Oylear, 35 Ida. 732 , 208 Pac. 857 ; Smith v. Faris-Kesl Const. Co., Ltd., 27 Ida. 407, 426 , 150 Pac. 25 ; Just v. Idaho Canal etc. Co., Ltd., 16 Ida. 639, 653 , 102 Pac. 381 , 133 Am. | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Smith v. Faris-Kesl Construction Co.
green
2 sentences1937(Ryan v. Woodin, 9 Ida. 525 , 75 Pac. 261 ; Oylear v. Oylear, 35 Ida. 732 , 208 Pac. 857 ; Smith v. Faris-Kesl Const. Co., Ltd., 27 Ida. 407, 426 , 150 Pac. 25 ; Just v. Idaho Canal etc. Co., Ltd., 16 Ida. 639, 653 , 102 Pac. 381 , 133 Am. 1937(Ryan v. Woodin, 9 Ida. 525 , 75 Pac. 261 ; Oylear v. Oylear, 35 Ida. 732 , 208 Pac. 857 ; Smith v. Faris-Kesl Const. Co., Ltd., 27 Ida. 407, 426 , 150 Pac. 25 ; Just v. Idaho Canal etc. Co., Ltd., 16 Ida. 639, 653 , 102 Pac. 381 , 133 Am. | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Oylear v. Oylear
neutral
2 sentences1937(Ryan v. Woodin, 9 Ida. 525 , 75 Pac. 261 ; Oylear v. Oylear, 35 Ida. 732 , 208 Pac. 857 ; Smith v. Faris-Kesl Const. Co., Ltd., 27 Ida. 407, 426 , 150 Pac. 25 ; Just v. Idaho Canal etc. Co., Ltd., 16 Ida. 639, 653 , 102 Pac. 381 , 133 Am. 1937(Ryan v. Woodin, 9 Ida. 525 , 75 Pac. 261 ; Oylear v. Oylear, 35 Ida. 732 , 208 Pac. 857 ; Smith v. Faris-Kesl Const. Co., Ltd., 27 Ida. 407, 426 , 150 Pac. 25 ; Just v. Idaho Canal etc. Co., Ltd., 16 Ida. 639, 653 , 102 Pac. 381 , 133 Am. | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Mabee v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance
neutral
2 sentences1937Co., 37 Ida. 681 , 219 Pac. 602 .) Long and continuous knowing acquiescence in another’s use and enjoyment of a property or privilege may preclude one from subsequently asserting his claim. 1937Co., 37 Ida. 681 , 219 Pac. 602 .) Long and continuous knowing acquiescence in another’s use and enjoyment of a property or privilege may preclude one from subsequently asserting his claim. | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Johnson v. Hurst
green
2 sentences1913It would seem that this would constitute at least color of title, in so far as it concerned a stranger purchasing land at tax sale, where the land has been assessed to “ an unknown owner. ” (Johnson v. Hurst, 10 Ida. 308, 77 Pac. 784 .) The following authorities would seem to support this view: Foster v. Bowman, 55 Iowa, 237 , 7 N. W. 513 ; Jaggard on Taxation, p. 622. 1913It would seem that this would constitute at least color of title, in so far as it concerned a stranger purchasing land at tax sale, where the land has been assessed to “ an unknown owner. ” (Johnson v. Hurst, 10 Ida. 308, 77 Pac. 784 .) The following authorities would seem to support this view: Foster v. Bowman, 55 Iowa, 237 , 7 N. W. 513 ; Jaggard on Taxation, p. 622. | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Foster v. Bowman
neutral
2 sentences1913It would seem that this would constitute at least color of title, in so far as it concerned a stranger purchasing land at tax sale, where the land has been assessed to “ an unknown owner. ” (Johnson v. Hurst, 10 Ida. 308, 77 Pac. 784 .) The following authorities would seem to support this view: Foster v. Bowman, 55 Iowa, 237 , 7 N. W. 513 ; Jaggard on Taxation, p. 622. 1913It would seem that this would constitute at least color of title, in so far as it concerned a stranger purchasing land at tax sale, where the land has been assessed to “ an unknown owner. ” (Johnson v. Hurst, 10 Ida. 308, 77 Pac. 784 .) The following authorities would seem to support this view: Foster v. Bowman, 55 Iowa, 237 , 7 N. W. 513 ; Jaggard on Taxation, p. 622. | 1 | 1913–1913 |
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.