6 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sun Valley Shopping Center, Inc. v. Idaho Power Co.green2 sentences2002Whether the trial court abused its discretion is determined under a three step analysis: “(1) whether the trial court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the trial court acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (3) whether the trial court reached its decision by an exercise of reason.” Sun Valley Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Idaho Power Co., 119 Idaho 87, 94 , 803 P.2d 993, 1000 (1991). 2002Whether the trial court abused its discretion is determined under a three step analysis: “(1) whether the trial court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the trial court acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (3) whether the trial court reached its decision by an exercise of reason.” Sun Valley Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Idaho Power Co., 119 Idaho 87, 94 , 803 P.2d 993, 1000 (1991). | 3 | 3 |
Harris v. State, Dept. of Healthgreen2 sentences2007ANALYSIS In addition to the “strong line” of authority setting out the standards under which this Court reviews a motion for summary judgment, Harris v. State Dept. of Health & Welfare, 123 Idaho 295, 298 , 847 P.2d 1156, 1159 (1992), when reviewing a motion for summary judgment against a governmental entity and its employees under ITCA, this Court must engage in a three step analysis. 2007ANALYSIS In addition to the “strong line” of authority setting out the standards under which this Court reviews a motion for summary judgment, Harris v. State Dept. of Health & Welfare, 123 Idaho 295, 298 , 847 P.2d 1156, 1159 (1992), when reviewing a motion for summary judgment against a governmental entity and its employees under ITCA, this Court must engage in a three step analysis. | 2 | 2 |
McDaniel v. INLAND NORTHWEST RENAL CAREgreen2 sentences2016Renal Care Grp.-Idaho, LLC, 144 Idaho 219, 221-22 , 159 P.3d 856, 858-59 (2007)). 1. 2016Renal Care Grp.-Idaho, LLC, 144 Idaho 219 , 221– 22, 159 P.3d 856 , 858–59 (2007)). 1. | 1 | 1 |
Mattox v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc.green2 sentences2016In applying the abuse of discretion standard, the Court employs a three step inquiry: “(1) whether the lower court rightly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the court acted within the boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to specific choices; and (3) whether the court reached its decision by an exercise of reason.” Mattox v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 157 Idaho 468, 473 , 337 P.3d 627 , 17 632 (2014) (quoting McDaniel v. Inland Nw. 2016In applying the abuse of discretion standard, the Court employs a three step inquiry: “(1) whether the lower court rightly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the court acted within the boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to specific choices; and (3) whether the court reached its decision by an exercise of reason.” Mattox v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 157 Idaho 468, 473 , 337 P.3d 627 , 17 632 (2014) (quoting McDaniel v. Inland Nw. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McDaniel v. Inland Northwest Renal Care Group-Idaho, LLC
neutral
2 sentences2016Renal Care Grp.-Idaho, LLC, 144 Idaho 219, 221-22 , 159 P.3d 856, 858-59 (2007)). 1. 2016Renal Care Grp.-Idaho, LLC, 144 Idaho 219 , 221– 22, 159 P.3d 856 , 858–59 (2007)). 1. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.