universally recognized rule in Idaho

6 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1942–2010 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.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Peck v. Stategreen · 1941 · cited in 6 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1942–2010 2 sentences 2006"It is a universally recognized rule of construction that, where a constitution or statute specifies certain things, the designation of such things excludes all others." Local 1494 of Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Coeur d'Alene, 99 Idaho 630, 639 , 586 P.2d 1346, 1355 (1978), quoting Peck v. State, 63 Idaho 375, 380 , 120 P.2d 820, 822 (1941). 2006"It is a universally recognized rule of construction that, where a constitution or statute specifies certain things, the designation of such things excludes all others." Local 1494 of Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Coeur d'Alene, 99 Idaho 630, 639 , 586 P.2d 1346, 1355 (1978), quoting Peck v. State, 63 Idaho 375, 380 , 120 P.2d 820, 822 (1941).	2	6
Local 1494 of the International Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Coeur D'Alenegreen idaho · 1978 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2006–2010 2 sentences 2006"It is a universally recognized rule of construction that, where a constitution or statute specifies certain things, the designation of such things excludes all others." Local 1494 of Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Coeur d'Alene, 99 Idaho 630, 639 , 586 P.2d 1346, 1355 (1978), quoting Peck v. State, 63 Idaho 375, 380 , 120 P.2d 820, 822 (1941). 2006"It is a universally recognized rule of construction that, where a constitution or statute specifies certain things, the designation of such things excludes all others." Local 1494 of Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Coeur d'Alene, 99 Idaho 630, 639 , 586 P.2d 1346, 1355 (1978), quoting Peck v. State, 63 Idaho 375, 380 , 120 P.2d 820, 822 (1941).	2	2
Poston v. Hollargreen idaho · 1942 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1976–1983 2 sentences 1976“It is a universally recognized rule of construction that, where a constitution or statute specifies certain things, the designation of such things excludes all others.” Peck v. State, 63 Idaho 375 , 120 P.2d 820 (1941); Poston v. Hollar, 64 Idaho 322 , 132 P.2d 142 (1942). 1976“It is a universally recognized rule of construction that, where a constitution or statute specifies certain things, the designation of such things excludes all others.” Peck v. State, 63 Idaho 375 , 120 P.2d 820 (1941); Poston v. Hollar, 64 Idaho 322 , 132 P.2d 142 (1942).	1	2

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (6)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Goldman neutral idaho · 1878 2 sentences 1983No. 2 v. Ada County, 38 Idaho 778, 786 , 226 P. 290 ; People v. Goldman, 1 Idaho 714 .’ Poston v. Hollar, 64 Idaho 322, 330-331 , 132 P.2d 142, 146 (1942). 1983No. 2 v. Ada County, 38 Idaho 778, 786 , 226 P. 290 ; People v. Goldman, 1 Idaho 714 .' Poston v. Hollar, 64 Idaho 322, 330-331 , 132 P.2d 142, 146 (1942).	3	1942–1983
Drainage District No. 2 v. Ada County neutral idaho · 1924 2 sentences 1983No. 2 v. Ada County, 38 Idaho 778, 786 , 226 P. 290 ; People v. Goldman, 1 Idaho 714 .’ Poston v. Hollar, 64 Idaho 322, 330-331 , 132 P.2d 142, 146 (1942). 1983No. 2 v. Ada County, 38 Idaho 778, 786 , 226 P. 290 ; People v. Goldman, 1 Idaho 714 .’ Poston v. Hollar, 64 Idaho 322, 330-331 , 132 P.2d 142, 146 (1942).	3	1942–1983
U. States v. Job L. Barber green · 1815 2 sentences 2006This rule of construction, which is typically stated in the Latin expressio unius est exclusio alterius, was first recited by this Court in Shoshone County v. Profit, 11 Idaho 763 , 84 P. 712 (1906), and was recognized by the United States Supreme Court long before Idaho became a state, The Adeline, 9 Cranch 244 , 3 L.Ed. 719 (1815). 2006This rule of construction, which is typically stated in the Latin expressio unius est exclusio alterius, was first recited by this Court in Shoshone County v. Profit, 11 Idaho 763 , 84 P. 712 (1906), and was recognized by the United States Supreme Court long before Idaho became a state, The Adeline, 9 Cranch 244 , 3 L.Ed. 719 (1815).	1	2006–2006
The Schooner Adeline & Cargo green · 1815 2 sentences 2006This rule of construction, which is typically stated in the Latin expressio unius est exclusio alterius, was first recited by this Court in Shoshone County v. Profit, 11 Idaho 763 , 84 P. 712 (1906), and was recognized by the United States Supreme Court long before Idaho became a state, The Adeline, 9 Cranch 244 , 3 L.Ed. 719 (1815). 2006This rule of construction, which is typically stated in the Latin expressio unius est exclusio alterius, was first recited by this Court in Shoshone County v. Profit, 11 Idaho 763 , 84 P. 712 (1906), and was recognized by the United States Supreme Court long before Idaho became a state, The Adeline, 9 Cranch 244 , 3 L.Ed. 719 (1815).	1	2006–2006
Shoshone County v. Profitt neutral · 1906 2 sentences 2006This rule of construction, which is typically stated in the Latin expressio unius est exclusio alterius, was first recited by this Court in Shoshone County v. Profit, 11 Idaho 763 , 84 P. 712 (1906), and was recognized by the United States Supreme Court long before Idaho became a state, The Adeline, 9 Cranch 244 , 3 L.Ed. 719 (1815). 2006This rule of construction, which is typically stated in the Latin expressio unius est exclusio alterius, was first recited by this Court in Shoshone County v. Profit, 11 Idaho 763 , 84 P. 712 (1906), and was recognized by the United States Supreme Court long before Idaho became a state, The Adeline, 9 Cranch 244 , 3 L.Ed. 719 (1815).	1	2006–2006
Noble v. Glenns Ferry Bank, Ltd. green idaho · 1966 2 sentences 1976This principle is expressed in the legal maxim “expressio unius est exclusio alterius.” See, Noble v. Glenn’s Ferry Bank, Ltd., 91 Idaho 364 , 421 P.2d 444 (1966), wherein the doctrine is discussed. 1976This principle is expressed in the legal maxim “expressio unius est exclusio alterius.” See, Noble v. Glenn’s Ferry Bank, Ltd., 91 Idaho 364 , 421 P.2d 444 (1966), wherein the doctrine is discussed.	1	1976–1976

Where else courts name it

OK 18 (1949–2023) KY 18 (1912–2025) AL 14 (1896–1993) WV 13 (1909–2025) IL 13 (1921–2008) MD 13 (1917–2020) CA 12 (1913–2012) TX 12 (1930–2015) MO 11 (1869–2018) GA 7 (1897–1983) MT 7 (1922–1984) KS 7 (1887–1949) LA 7 (1933–1999) ID 6 (1942–2010) IN 6 (1890–1981) AR 5 (1910–2005) OH 5 (1888–1991) NJ 4 (1942–1977) WY 4 (1923–1988) WA 4 (1903–1959) IA 4 (1902–2020) DE 4 (1956–2001) NY 3 (1913–1936) MN 3 (1926–1985) FL 3 (1939–1985) PA 3 (1915–1977) TN 3 (1960–2017) CO 3 (1951–2002) VT 2 (1853–2010) SD 2 (1953–1989) MS 2 (1922–1983) MA 2 (1910–1974) NV 2 (1867–1974) DC 2 (1988–1996) HI 2 (1926–1960) NC 2 (1896–1936) NM 2 (1940–1975) PR 2 (1933–1947) AZ 2 (1977–1995) NE 2 (1902–1987)

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