6 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Garcia v. Windleygreen2 sentences2015BRN moved for summary judgment asking the district court “to rule as a matter of law that if Taylor provided the disputed advice concerning what was necessary to vest the PUD, the services involved in rendering such advice come within the special relationship exception to the economic loss rule.” “It is well settled in Idaho that ‘[a]n order denying a motion for summary judgment is an interlocutory order from which no direct appeal may be taken.’ ” Garcia v. Windley, 144 Idaho 539, 542 , 164 P.3d 819, 822 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Dominguez v. Evergreen Res., Inc., 142 Idaho 7, 2015BRN moved for summary judgment asking the district court “to rule as a matter of law that if Taylor provided the disputed advice concerning what was necessary to vest the PUD, the services involved in rendering such advice come within the special relationship exception to the economic loss rule.” “It is well settled in Idaho that ‘[a]n order denying a motion for summary judgment is an interlocutory order from which no direct appeal may be taken.’ ” Garcia v. Windley, 144 Idaho 539, 542 , 164 P.3d 819, 822 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Dominguez v. Evergreen Res., Inc., 142 Idaho 7, | 2 | 2 |
Nation v. State, Dept. of Correctiongreen2 sentences2015To establish a cause of action for negligence, the plaintiff must demonstrate: “(1) a duty, recognized by law, requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of conduct; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage.” Nation v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 144 Idaho 177, 189 , 158 P.3d 953, 965 (2007) (quoting O’Guin v. Bingham Cnty., 142 Idaho 49, 52 , 122 P.3d 308, 311 (2005)). 2015To establish a cause of action for negligence, the plaintiff must demonstrate: “(1) a duty, recognized by law, requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of conduct; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage.” Nation v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 144 Idaho 177, 189 , 158 P.3d 953, 965 (2007) (quoting O’Guin v. Bingham Cnty., 142 Idaho 49, 52 , 122 P.3d 308, 311 (2005)). | 2 | 2 |
O'GUIN v. Bingham Countygreen2 sentences2015To establish a cause of action for negligence, the plaintiff must demonstrate: “(1) a duty, recognized by law, requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of conduct; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage.” Nation v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 144 Idaho 177, 189 , 158 P.3d 953, 965 (2007) (quoting O’Guin v. Bingham Cnty., 142 Idaho 49, 52 , 122 P.3d 308, 311 (2005)). 2015To establish a cause of action for negligence, the plaintiff must demonstrate: “(1) a duty, recognized by law, requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of conduct; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage.” Nation v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 144 Idaho 177, 189 , 158 P.3d 953, 965 (2007) (quoting O’Guin v. Bingham Cnty., 142 Idaho 49, 52 , 122 P.3d 308, 311 (2005)). | 2 | 2 |
Dominguez v. Evergreen Resources, Inc.green2 sentences2015BRN moved for summary judgment asking the district court “to rule as a matter of law that if Taylor provided the disputed advice concerning what was necessary to vest the PUD, the services involved in rendering such advice come within the special relationship exception to the economic loss rule.” “It is well settled in Idaho that ‘[a]n order denying a motion for summary judgment is an interlocutory order from which no direct appeal may be taken.’ ” Garcia v. Windley, 144 Idaho 539, 542 , 164 P.3d 819, 822 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Dominguez v. Evergreen Res., Inc., 142 Idaho 7, 2015BRN moved for summary judgment asking the district court “to rule as a matter of law that if Taylor provided the disputed advice concerning what was necessary to vest the PUD, the services involved in rendering such advice come within the special relationship exception to the economic loss rule.” “It is well settled in Idaho that ‘[a]n order denying a motion for summary judgment is an interlocutory order from which no direct appeal may be taken.’ ” Garcia v. Windley, 144 Idaho 539, 542 , 164 P.3d 819, 822 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Dominguez v. Evergreen Res., Inc., 142 Idaho 7, | 2 | 2 |
Coghlan v. Beta Theta Pi Fraternitygreen2 sentences2024See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A (1965); Coghlan, 133 Idaho at 399 , 987 P.2d at 311 (“Determining whether a special relationship exist[s] . . . sufficient to impose a duty requires an evaluation of ‘the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that a particular plaintiff is entitled to protection.’” (quoting William Prosser, Law of Torts 333 (3d ed. 1964))). 2024See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A (1965); Coghlan, 133 Idaho at 399 , 987 P.2d at 311 (“Determining whether a special relationship exist[s] . . . sufficient to impose a duty requires an evaluation of ‘the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that a particular plaintiff is entitled to protection.’” (quoting William Prosser, Law of Torts 333 (3d ed. 1964))). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hoskinsgreen2 sentences2021State v. Hoskins, 165 Idaho 217, 222 , 443 P.3d 231, 236 (2019). 2021State v. Hoskins, 165 Idaho 217, 222 , 443 P.3d 231, 236 (2019). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Duffin v. Idaho Crop Improvement Ass'n
green
2 sentences2021This Court has applied the special relationship exception narrowly, holding that a special relationship exists in only two situations: “(1) where a professional or quasi-professional performs personal services; [or] (2) where an entity holds itself out to the public as having expertise regarding a specialized function, and by so doing, knowingly induces reliance on its performance of that function.” Id. (citations omitted). 2005However, this Court explained the special relationship exception did not apply to the Federal-State Inspection Service because there was no evidence in the record to “conclude that it ha[d] actively sought to induce reliance on the part of purchasers of certified seed.” Id. | 2 | 2005–2021 |
Blahd v. Richard B. Smith, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021However, we note that this Court’s holding in Sumpter v. Holland Realty, Inc., 140 Idaho 349 , 93 P.3d 680 (2004), that real estate agents are not professionals for the purposes of professional malpractice, does not necessarily foreclose the special relationship exception from applying to real estate agents as “quasi-professionals.” See Blahd, 141 Idaho at 301 , 108 P.3d at 1001 . 11 met before upholding the decision based on one of the unconsidered theories. 2021However, we note that this Court’s holding in Sumpter v. Holland Realty, Inc., 140 Idaho 349 , 93 P.3d 680 (2004), that real estate agents are not professionals for the purposes of professional malpractice, does not necessarily foreclose the special relationship exception from applying to real estate agents as “quasi-professionals.” See Blahd, 141 Idaho at 301 , 108 P.3d at 1001 . 11 met before upholding the decision based on one of the unconsidered theories. | 2 | 2009–2021 |
Rife v. Long
green
2 sentences2024This Court first applied the seven-factor test to the special relationship inquiry in Rife, 127 Idaho at 846 , 908 P.2d at 148 . 2024This Court first applied the seven-factor test to the special relationship inquiry in Rife, 127 Idaho at 846 , 908 P.2d at 148 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Sumpter v. Holland Realty, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021However, we note that this Court’s holding in Sumpter v. Holland Realty, Inc., 140 Idaho 349 , 93 P.3d 680 (2004), that real estate agents are not professionals for the purposes of professional malpractice, does not necessarily foreclose the special relationship exception from applying to real estate agents as “quasi-professionals.” See Blahd, 141 Idaho at 301 , 108 P.3d at 1001 . 11 met before upholding the decision based on one of the unconsidered theories. 2021However, we note that this Court’s holding in Sumpter v. Holland Realty, Inc., 140 Idaho 349 , 93 P.3d 680 (2004), that real estate agents are not professionals for the purposes of professional malpractice, does not necessarily foreclose the special relationship exception from applying to real estate agents as “quasi-professionals.” See Blahd, 141 Idaho at 301 , 108 P.3d at 1001 . 11 met before upholding the decision based on one of the unconsidered theories. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.