ultra vires doctrine (Idaho) · Go Syfert
← Idaho issues

ultra vires doctrine in Idaho

6 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1910–2025 3 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Power County v. Evans Bros. Land & Live Stock Co.green
idaho · 1926 · cited in 4 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2018–2022
2 sentences

2022Land & Live Stock Co., 43 Idaho 158, 166 , 252 P. 182, 183 (1926)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2022Land & Live Stock Co., 43 Idaho 158, 166 , 252 P. 182, 183 (1926)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

34

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Taylor v. Taylor green
idaho · 2018
2 sentences

2022However, we have previously limited its application by holding “that the doctrine of ultra vires, when invoked for or against a corporation, should not be allowed to prevail where it would defeat the ends of justice or work a legal wrong.” Id. (quoting Power Cnty. v. Evans Bros.

2022However, we have previously limited its application by holding “that the doctrine of ultra vires, when invoked for or against a corporation, should not be allowed to prevail where it would defeat the ends of justice or work a legal wrong.” Id. (quoting Power Cnty. v. Evans Bros.

22022–2022
Carter v. State, Dept. of Health & Welfare green
idaho · 1982
1 sentence

2025Id.

12025–2025
Railway Co. v. McCarthy green
scotus · 1878
1 sentence

1910Co. v. McCarthy, 96 U. S. 258 , 24 L. ed. 693, the court said: ‘ ‘ The doctrine of ultra vires, when invoked for or against a corporation, should not be allowed to prevail where it would defeat the ends of justice or work a legal wrong.” In Carson City Savings Bank v. Elevator Co., 90 Mich. 550 , 3 Am.

11910–1910
Carson City Savings Bank v. Carson City Elevator Co. neutral
mich · 1892
2 sentences

1910St. 454,. 51 N. W. 641 , the court held that the plea of ultra vires should not, as a general rule, prevail, whether interposed for or against a corporation, when it would not advance justice, but, on the contrary, would accomplish a legal wrong.

1910Co. v. McCarthy, 96 U. S. 258 , 24 L. ed. 693, the court said: ‘ ‘ The doctrine of ultra vires, when invoked for or against a corporation, should not be allowed to prevail where it would defeat the ends of justice or work a legal wrong.” In Carson City Savings Bank v. Elevator Co., 90 Mich. 550 , 3 Am.

11910–1910

Statutes the citing opinions construe

ID § Idaho Code § 12-121 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 555 (1883–2026) NY 14 (1882–2025) WA 13 (1893–2021) IL 10 (1904–2015) DE 9 (2018–2024) CA 9 (1894–2026) MN 7 (1887–2003) AR 7 (1915–2026) ID 6 (1910–2025) MO 6 (1886–1984) CO 5 (1910–2021) TN 5 (1915–2016) OK 4 (1913–1916) NC 4 (1901–1994) OH 4 (1984–2020) MI 4 (1898–1975) PA 4 (1904–2016) AL 3 (1880–2024) IN 3 (1900–1993) VA 3 (1924–2010) NJ 3 (1903–1976) MS 3 (1999–2004) WI 3 (1902–1975) SC 2 (1888–2020) GA 2 (1911–1995) MD 2 (1989–2019) IA 2 (1905–1915) MA 2 (1978–1997) DC 2 (1881–2011)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check