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 1988–2025 4 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 sentences2008When reviewing a trial court decision for abuse of discretion, the sequence of the inquiry is: “(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 Center, Inc. v. Idaho Power Co., 119 Idaho 87, 94 , 803 P.2d 993, 1000 (1991). 2008When reviewing a trial court decision for abuse of discretion, the sequence of the inquiry is: “(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 Center, Inc. v. Idaho Power Co., 119 Idaho 87, 94 , 803 P.2d 993, 1000 (1991). | 12 | 18 |
Associates Northwest, Inc. v. Beetsgreen2 sentences1992The sequence of the inquiry is (1) whether the lower court rightly perceived issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the court acted within the outer 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.” Associates Northwest, Inc. v. Beets, 112 Idaho 603, 605 , 733 P.2d 824, 826 (Ct.App.1987). 1992The sequence of the inquiry is (1) whether the lower court rightly perceived issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the court acted within the outer 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.” Associates Northwest, Inc. v. Beets, 112 Idaho 603, 605 , 733 P.2d 824, 826 (Ct.App.1987). | 11 | 14 |
State v. Hedgergreen2 sentences2006The sequence of the inquiry is (1) whether the lower court rightly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the court acted within the outer 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.” Id. 2006The sequence of the inquiry is (1) whether the lower court rightly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the court acted within the outer 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." Id. | 7 | 12 |
Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, Corp.green2 sentences2023When this Court reviews an alleged abuse of discretion by a trial court, the sequence of inquiry requires consideration of four essentials: “whether the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (4) reached its decision by the exercise of reason.” State v. Bodenbach, 165 Idaho 577, 591 , 448 P.3d 1005, 1019 (2019) (quoting Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 Idaho 856 , 863, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (2018)). 2022When this Court reviews an alleged abuse of discretion by a trial court the sequence of inquiry requires consideration of four essentials: “whether the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (4) reached its decision by the exercise of reason.” State v. Bodenbach, 165 Idaho 577, 591 , 448 P.3d 1005, 1019 (2019) (quoting Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 Idaho 856 , 863, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (2018)). | 4 | 6 |
Athay v. Staceygreen2 sentences2018Athay v. Stacey, 142 Idaho 360, 366 , 128 P.3d 897, 903 (2005). 2018Athay v. Stacey, 142 Idaho 360, 366 , 128 P.3d 897, 903 (2005). | 2 | 5 |
State v. Bodenbachgreen2 sentences2023When this Court reviews an alleged abuse of discretion by a trial court, the sequence of inquiry requires consideration of four essentials: “whether the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (4) reached its decision by the exercise of reason.” State v. Bodenbach, 165 Idaho 577, 591 , 448 P.3d 1005, 1019 (2019) (quoting Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 Idaho 856 , 863, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (2018)). 2023When this Court reviews an alleged abuse of discretion by a trial court, the sequence of inquiry requires consideration of four essentials: “whether the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (4) reached its decision by the exercise of reason.” State v. Bodenbach, 165 Idaho 577, 591 , 448 P.3d 1005, 1019 (2019) (quoting Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 Idaho 856 , 863, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (2018)). | 2 | 2 |
O'DELL v. Basabegreen2 sentences1991The sequence of the inquiry is (1) whether the lower court rightly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the court acted within the outer 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. [Citation omitted.] O'Dell v. Basabe, 119 Idaho 796 , 810 P.2d 1082 (1991); State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 600 , 768 P.2d 1331, 1333 (1989). 1991The sequence of the inquiry is (1) whether the lower court rightly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the court acted within the outer 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. [Citation omitted.] O'Dell v. Basabe, 119 Idaho 796 , 810 P.2d 1082 (1991); State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 600 , 768 P.2d 1331, 1333 (1989). | 1 | 2 |
SIRIUS LC v. Ericksongreen2 sentences2011“The sequence of inquiry as to whether the trial court abused its discretion is: (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.” Eagle Water Co. v. Roundy Pole Fence Co., 134 Idaho 626, 629 , 7 P.3d 1103, 1106 (2000); see also Sirius LC, 144 Idaho at 43 , 156 P.3d at 544 . 2011“The sequence of inquiry as to whether the trial court abused its discretion is: (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.” Eagle Water Co. v. Roundy Pole Fence Co., 134 Idaho 626, 629 , 7 P.3d 1103, 1106 (2000); see also Sirius LC, 144 Idaho at 43 , 156 P.3d at 544 . | 1 | 1 |
Eagle Water Co., Inc. v. Roundy Pole Fence Co., Inc.green2 sentences2011“The sequence of inquiry as to whether the trial court abused its discretion is: (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.” Eagle Water Co. v. Roundy Pole Fence Co., 134 Idaho 626, 629 , 7 P.3d 1103, 1106 (2000); see also Sirius LC, 144 Idaho at 43 , 156 P.3d at 544 . 2011“The sequence of inquiry as to whether the trial court abused its discretion is: (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.” Eagle Water Co. v. Roundy Pole Fence Co., 134 Idaho 626, 629 , 7 P.3d 1103, 1106 (2000); see also Sirius LC, 144 Idaho at 43 , 156 P.3d at 544 . | 1 | 1 |
Doe v. Boy Scouts of Americagreen2 sentences2011“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which this Court exercises free review.” Doe v. Boy Scouts of America, 148 Idaho 427, 430 , 224 P.3d 494, 497 (2009). 2011“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which this Court exercises free review.” Doe v. Boy Scouts of America, 148 Idaho 427, 430 , 224 P.3d 494, 497 (2009). | 1 | 1 |
Weeks v. Eastern Idaho Health Servicesgreen2 sentences2009Weeks v. Eastern Idaho Health Services, 143 Idaho 834, 837 , 153 P.3d 1180, 1183 (2007) (citing Athay v. Stacey, 142 Idaho 360, 366 , 128 P.3d 897, 903 (2005)). 2009Weeks v. Eastern Idaho Health Services, 143 Idaho 834, 837 , 153 P.3d 1180, 1183 (2007) (citing Athay v. Stacey, 142 Idaho 360, 366 , 128 P.3d 897, 903 (2005)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pearson v. Callahan
green
1 sentence2024Cf. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 , 234–36 (2009) (abandoning “rigid order of battle” framework under the two-pronged, qualified immunity analysis). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.