Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
45 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Doegreen2 sentences2018“In an action to terminate parental rights where a trial court has noted explicitly and applied a clear and convincing standard, an appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s findings unless they are not supported by substantial and competent evidence.” State v. Doe, 144 Idaho 534, 535 , 164 P.3d 814, 815 (2007). 2018“In an action to terminate parental rights where a trial court has noted explicitly and applied a clear and convincing standard, an appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s findings unless they are not supported by substantial and competent evidence.” State v. Doe, 144 Idaho 534, 535 , 164 P.3d 814, 815 (2007). | 9 | 10 |
Department of Health and Welfare v. Doegreen2 sentences2011Indeed, it has become axiomatic that "[w]here a trial court has noted explicitly and applied a clear and convincing standard, [this Court] will not disturb the trial court's findings unless they are not supported by substantial and competent evidence." Id. (quoting Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 149 Idaho 207, 210 , 233 P.3d 138, 141 (2010)). 2011Indeed, it has become axiomatic that "[w]here a trial court has noted explicitly and applied a clear and convincing standard, [this Court] will not disturb the trial court's findings unless they are not supported by substantial and competent evidence." Id. (quoting Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 149 Idaho 207, 210 , 233 P.3d 138, 141 (2010)). | 4 | 4 |
Anderson v. Harper's, Inc.green2 sentences2017“Substantial and competent evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion.” Anderson v. Harper’s, Inc., 143 Idaho 193, 195 , 141 P.3d 1062, 1064 (2006). 2017“Substantial and competent evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion.” Anderson v. Harper’s, Inc., 143 Idaho 193, 195 , 141 P.3d 1062, 1064 (2006). | 3 | 4 |
In Re Adoption of Doegreen2 sentences2024This Court has regularly applied the clear and convincing standard for terminating parental rights, see In re Adoption of Doe, 143 Idaho at 191 , 141 P.3d at 1060 , but we have not specified the standard of proof to be applied in guardianship termination petitions. 2024This Court has regularly applied the clear and convincing standard for terminating parental rights, see In re Adoption of Doe, 143 Idaho at 191 , 141 P.3d at 1060 , but we have not specified the standard of proof to be applied in guardianship termination petitions. | 2 | 4 |
Steven J. Snider v. Ronald D. Arnoldgreen2 sentences2025“Whether a party presented sufficient evidence to meet the clear and convincing standard is a finding of fact that this Court will uphold if substantial and competent evidence supports it.” Snider v. Arnold, 153 Idaho 641, 644 , 289 P.3d 43, 46 (2012) (citations omitted). 2025“Whether a party presented sufficient evidence to meet the clear and convincing standard is a finding of fact that this Court will uphold if substantial and competent evidence supports it.” Snider v. Arnold, 153 Idaho 641, 644 , 289 P.3d 43, 46 (2012) (citations omitted). | 2 | 3 |
Jane Doe v. John Doe (In re Jane Doe II)green2 sentences2019To meet the clear-and-convincing standard, there must be “evidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain.” Matter of Doe II, 165 Idaho 199, 202 , 443 P.3d 213, 216 (2019) (quoting In re Adoption of Doe, 143 Idaho 188, 191 , 141 P.3d 1057, 1060 (2006)). 2019To meet the clear-and-convincing standard, there must be “evidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain.” Matter of Doe II, 165 Idaho 199, 202 , 443 P.3d 213, 216 (2019) (quoting In re Adoption of Doe, 143 Idaho 188, 191 , 141 P.3d 1057, 1060 (2006)). | 2 | 2 |
Doe v. Roegreen2 sentences2010Only clearly erroneous findings are overturned, which means a reasonable person would not have relied on them in concluding as the fact finder did. 142 Idaho 202, 203 , 127 P.3d 105, 106 (2005) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 2010Only clearly erroneous findings are overturned, which means a reasonable person would not have relied on them in concluding as the fact finder did. 142 Idaho 202, 203 , 127 P.3d 105, 106 (2005) (internal citations and quotations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Roberts v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2006“Findings are competent, so long as they are supported by substantial, albeit possibly, conflicting, evidence.” Roberts v. Roberts, 138 Idaho 401, 405 , 64 P.3d 327, 331 (2003). 2006“Findings are competent, so long as they are supported by substantial, albeit possibly, conflicting, evidence.” Roberts v. Roberts, 138 Idaho 401, 405 , 64 P.3d 327, 331 (2003). | 2 | 2 |
Hettinga v. Sybrandygreen2 sentences2021“Whether a party presented sufficient evidence to meet the clear and convincing standard is a finding of fact that this Court will uphold if substantial and competent evidence supports it.” Snider v. Arnold, 153 Idaho 641, 644 , 289 P.3d 43, 46 (2012) (citing Hettinga v. Sybrandy, 126 Idaho 467, 469 , 886 P.2d 772, 774 (1994)). 2021“Whether a party presented sufficient evidence to meet the clear and convincing standard is a finding of fact that this Court will uphold if substantial and competent evidence supports it.” Snider v. Arnold, 153 Idaho 641, 644 , 289 P.3d 43, 46 (2012) (citing Hettinga v. Sybrandy, 126 Idaho 467, 469 , 886 P.2d 772, 774 (1994)). | 1 | 3 |
Doe v. Doegreen2 sentences2019When a magistrate court has applied the clear-and-convincing standard, this Court “will not disturb the magistrate court’s decision to terminate parental rights if there is substantial, competent evidence in the record to support the decision.” Doe, 150 Idaho at 49 , 244 P.3d at 193 . 2019When a magistrate court has applied the clear-and-convincing standard, this Court “will not disturb the magistrate court’s decision to terminate parental rights if there is substantial, competent evidence in the record to support the decision.” Doe, 150 Idaho at 49 , 244 P.3d at 193 . | 1 | 3 |
Roe Family Services v. Doegreen2 sentences2006“In an action to terminate parental rights, “where a clear and convincing standard has been noted explicitly and applied by the trial court, an appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s findings unless they are not supported by substantial and competent evidence.’ ” Id. at 934 , 88 P.3d at 753 . 2006“In an action to terminate parental rights, “where a clear and convincing standard has been noted explicitly and applied by the trial court, an appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s findings unless they are not supported by substantial and competent evidence.’ ” Id. at 934 , 88 P.3d at 753 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Doegreen2 sentences2018Substantial, competent evidence is "such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id . (quoting State v. Doe , 143 Idaho 343 , 346, 144 P.3d 597 , 600 (2006) ). 2018Substantial, competent evidence is "such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id . (quoting State v. Doe , 143 Idaho 343 , 346, 144 P.3d 597 , 600 (2006) ). | 1 | 2 |
Troxel v. Granvillegreen1 sentence2022Because the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children “is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by” the Supreme Court of the United States, this Court concluded that those seeking to establish a right to visitation would need to do so via “the clear and convincing standard of proof[.]” Id. (quoting Troxel, 530 U.S. at 64 (O’Connor, J., plurality opinion)). | 1 | 1 |
Jane Doe (2015-03) v. John Doegreen2 sentences2017In re Doe (2015-03), 159 Idaho 192, 195 , 358 P.3d 77, 80 (2015). 2017In re Doe (2015-03), 159 Idaho 192, 195 , 358 P.3d 77, 80 (2015). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Termination of the Parental Rights of Doe (2014-22)green2 sentences2015STANDARD OF REVIEW “In an action to terminate parental rights where a trial court has noted explicitly and applied a clear and convincing standard, an appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s findings unless they are not supported by substantial and competent evidence.” In re Doe, 157 Idaho 955, 958 , 342 P.3d 667, 670 (2015). 2015STANDARD OF REVIEW “In an action to terminate parental rights where a trial court has noted explicitly and applied a clear and convincing standard, an appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s findings unless they are not supported by substantial and competent evidence.” In re Doe, 157 Idaho 955, 958 , 342 P.3d 667, 670 (2015). | 1 | 1 |
Idaho Department of Health & Welfare v. Doegreen2 sentences2012STANDARD OF REVIEW “Grounds for termination of parental rights must be shown by clear and convincing evidence because each parent has a fundamental liberty interest in maintaining a relationship with his or her child.” Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe II, 150 Idaho 36, 41 , 244 P.3d 180, 185 (2010). “[W]here a trial court has noted explicitly and applied a clear and convincing standard, an appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s findings unless they are not supported by substantial and competent evidence.” State v. Doe, 144 Idaho 534, 535 , 164 P.3d 814, 815 (2007). 2012STANDARD OF REVIEW “Grounds for termination of parental rights must be shown by clear and convincing evidence because each parent has a fundamental liberty interest in maintaining a relationship with his or her child.” Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe II, 150 Idaho 36, 41 , 244 P.3d 180, 185 (2010). “[W]here a trial court has noted explicitly and applied a clear and convincing standard, an appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s findings unless they are not supported by substantial and competent evidence.” State v. Doe, 144 Idaho 534, 535 , 164 P.3d 814, 815 (2007). | 1 | 1 |
| Lickley v. Max Herbold, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Lindberg v. Rosethgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Whiteleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hofmeister v. Bauergreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Estate of Cookegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Smith v. Kinggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roe v. Doe
green
2 sentences2024This Court has regularly applied the clear and convincing standard for terminating parental rights, see In re Adoption of Doe, 143 Idaho at 191 , 141 P.3d at 1060 , but we have not specified the standard of proof to be applied in guardianship termination petitions. 2024This Court has regularly applied the clear and convincing standard for terminating parental rights, see In re Adoption of Doe, 143 Idaho at 191 , 141 P.3d at 1060 , but we have not specified the standard of proof to be applied in guardianship termination petitions. | 4 | 2019–2024 |
Nelson v. Evans
green
2 sentences2024Alayna cites Nelson, arguing that the clear and convincing standard is required for statutes that infringe on the fundamental rights of parents. 170 Idaho at 894 , 517 P.3d at 823 . 2024Alayna cites Nelson, arguing that the clear and convincing standard is required for statutes that infringe on the fundamental rights of parents. 170 Idaho at 894 , 517 P.3d at 823 . | 2 | 2024–2024 |
CASI Foundation, Inc. v. Doe
green
2 sentences2007Id. 2007Id. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Leavitt v. Leavitt
green
1 sentence2022Because the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children “is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by” the Supreme Court of the United States, this Court concluded that those seeking to establish a right to visitation would need to do so via “the clear and convincing standard of proof[.]” Id. (quoting Troxel, 530 U.S. at 64 (O’Connor, J., plurality opinion)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Idaho Department of Health & Welfare v. Doe
green
2 sentences2019On appeal, this Court must conduct an independent review of the record, but “must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the magistrate court’s judgment, as the magistrate court has the opportunity to observe witnesses’ demeanor, to assess their credibility, to detect prejudice or motive and to judge the character of the parties.” In re Doe (2014-23), 157 Idaho at 923 , 342 P.3d at 635 (quoting Doe v. Doe, 150 Idaho 46, 49 , 244 P.3d 190, 193 (2010)). 2019On appeal, this Court must conduct an independent review of the record, but “must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the magistrate court’s judgment, as the magistrate court has the opportunity to observe witnesses’ demeanor, to assess their credibility, to detect prejudice or motive and to judge the character of the parties.” In re Doe (2014-23), 157 Idaho at 923 , 342 P.3d at 635 (quoting Doe v. Doe, 150 Idaho 46, 49 , 244 P.3d 190, 193 (2010)). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
IDAHO DEPT. OF HEALTH & WELFARE v. Doe
green
2 sentences2013The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the magistrate’s decision to terminate, stating, “[t]he trial court explicitly noted and applied the clear and convincing standard, and the trial court’s findings are supported by the substantial and competent evidence set forth above.” Id. at 505 , 260 P.3d at 1176 .3 In sum, although there is evidence that Doe has made recent progress in completing her case plan by attending various classes, there is also substantial and competent evidence supporting the magistrate’s finding that she neglected B.N. as defined by I.C. § 16-2002(3)(a). 3 In her brief, Doe point 2013The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the magistrate’s decision to terminate, stating, “[t]he trial court explicitly noted and applied the clear and convincing standard, and the trial court’s findings are supported by the substantial and competent evidence set forth above.” Id. at 505 , 260 P.3d at 1176 .3 In sum, although there is evidence that Doe has made recent progress in completing her case plan by attending various classes, there is also substantial and competent evidence supporting the magistrate’s finding that she neglected B.N. as defined by I.C. § 16-2002(3)(a). 3 In her brief, Doe point | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Department of Health & Welfare v. Doe
green
2 sentences2013For example, Doe argues that the instant case is “remarkably similar” to State, Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 133 Idaho 826 , 992 P.2d 1226 (Ct. App. 1999), implicitly overruled on other grounds; Bach v. Bagley, 148 Idaho 784 , 229 P.3d 1146 (2010), as recognized in Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 150 Idaho 752 , 250 P.3d 803 (Ct. App. 2011). 2013For example, Doe argues that the instant case is “remarkably similar” to State, Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 133 Idaho 826 , 992 P.2d 1226 (Ct. App. 1999), implicitly overruled on other grounds; Bach v. Bagley, 148 Idaho 784 , 229 P.3d 1146 (2010), as recognized in Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 150 Idaho 752 , 250 P.3d 803 (Ct. App. 2011). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Bach v. Bagley
green
2 sentences2013For example, Doe argues that the instant case is “remarkably similar” to State, Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 133 Idaho 826 , 992 P.2d 1226 (Ct. App. 1999), implicitly overruled on other grounds; Bach v. Bagley, 148 Idaho 784 , 229 P.3d 1146 (2010), as recognized in Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 150 Idaho 752 , 250 P.3d 803 (Ct. App. 2011). 2013For example, Doe argues that the instant case is “remarkably similar” to State, Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 133 Idaho 826 , 992 P.2d 1226 (Ct. App. 1999), implicitly overruled on other grounds; Bach v. Bagley, 148 Idaho 784 , 229 P.3d 1146 (2010), as recognized in Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 150 Idaho 752 , 250 P.3d 803 (Ct. App. 2011). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Idaho Department of Health & Welfare v. Doe
green
2 sentences2013For example, Doe argues that the instant case is “remarkably similar” to State, Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 133 Idaho 826 , 992 P.2d 1226 (Ct. App. 1999), implicitly overruled on other grounds; Bach v. Bagley, 148 Idaho 784 , 229 P.3d 1146 (2010), as recognized in Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 150 Idaho 752 , 250 P.3d 803 (Ct. App. 2011). 2013For example, Doe argues that the instant case is “remarkably similar” to State, Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 133 Idaho 826 , 992 P.2d 1226 (Ct. App. 1999), implicitly overruled on other grounds; Bach v. Bagley, 148 Idaho 784 , 229 P.3d 1146 (2010), as recognized in Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 150 Idaho 752 , 250 P.3d 803 (Ct. App. 2011). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Silkey v. Tiegs green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Moe v. Harger
green
1 sentence2012Moe v. Harger, 10 Idaho 302 , 77 P. 645 ; Josslyn v. Daly, 15 Idaho 137 , 96 P. 568 ; Jackson v. Cowan, 33 Idaho 525 , 196 P. 216 [ (1921) ]; Silkey v. Tiegs, 54 Idaho 126 , 28 P.2d 1037 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Moe v. Harger
neutral
1 sentence2012Moe v. Harger, 10 Idaho 302 , 77 P. 645 ; Josslyn v. Daly, 15 Idaho 137 , 96 P. 568 ; Jackson v. Cowan, 33 Idaho 525 , 196 P. 216 [ (1921) ]; Silkey v. Tiegs, 54 Idaho 126 , 28 P.2d 1037 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Josslyn v. Daly
green
2 sentences2012Moe v. Harger, 10 Idaho 302 , 77 P. 645 ; Josslyn v. Daly, 15 Idaho 137 , 96 P. 568 ; Jackson v. Cowan, 33 Idaho 525 , 196 P. 216 [ (1921) ]; Silkey v. Tiegs, 54 Idaho 126 , 28 P.2d 1037 . 2012Moe v. Harger, 10 Idaho 302 , 77 P. 645 ; Josslyn v. Daly, 15 Idaho 137 , 96 P. 568 ; Jackson v. Cowan, 33 Idaho 525 , 196 P. 216 [ (1921) ]; Silkey v. Tiegs, 54 Idaho 126 , 28 P.2d 1037 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Jackson v. Cowan
neutral
2 sentences2012Moe v. Harger, 10 Idaho 302 , 77 P. 645 ; Josslyn v. Daly, 15 Idaho 137 , 96 P. 568 ; Jackson v. Cowan, 33 Idaho 525 , 196 P. 216 [ (1921) ]; Silkey v. Tiegs, 54 Idaho 126 , 28 P.2d 1037 . 2012Moe v. Harger, 10 Idaho 302 , 77 P. 645 ; Josslyn v. Daly, 15 Idaho 137 , 96 P. 568 ; Jackson v. Cowan, 33 Idaho 525 , 196 P. 216 [ (1921) ]; Silkey v. Tiegs, 54 Idaho 126 , 28 P.2d 1037 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Cantlin v. Carter
yellow
2 sentences2012We again affirmed the clear and convincing standard of proof in Cantlin v. Carter. 88 Idaho 179 , 397 P.2d 761 (1964). 2012We again affirmed the clear and convincing standard of proof in Cantlin v. Carter. 88 Idaho 179 , 397 P.2d 761 (1964). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Idaho Judicial Council v. Becker green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| In Re Estate of Bogert green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Cardenas v. Kurpjuweit green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Kline v. Clinton green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Wiemer v. Rankin green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| In Interest of Bush green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Last Chance Ditch Co. v. Sawyer green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.