5 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nation v. State, Dept. of Correctiongreen2 sentences2020This Court has held that “a public disclosure did not occur when the record indicated that only a limited number of persons received the private information and those persons had a right to know the information.” Nation v. State, Dep’t of Correction, 144 Idaho 177, 188 , 158 P.3d 953, 964 (2007) (citing Baker v. Burlington N., Inc., 99 Idaho 688, 691 , 587 P.2d 829, 832 (1978)). 2020This Court has held that “a public disclosure did not occur when the record indicated that only a limited number of persons received the private information and those persons had a right to know the information.” Nation v. State, Dep’t of Correction, 144 Idaho 177, 188 , 158 P.3d 953, 964 (2007) (citing Baker v. Burlington N., Inc., 99 Idaho 688, 691 , 587 P.2d 829, 832 (1978)). | 2 | 2 |
Baker v. Burlington Northern, Inc.green2 sentences2020This Court has held that “a public disclosure did not occur when the record indicated that only a limited number of persons received the private information and those persons had a right to know the information.” Nation v. State, Dep’t of Correction, 144 Idaho 177, 188 , 158 P.3d 953, 964 (2007) (citing Baker v. Burlington N., Inc., 99 Idaho 688, 691 , 587 P.2d 829, 832 (1978)). 2020This Court has held that “a public disclosure did not occur when the record indicated that only a limited number of persons received the private information and those persons had a right to know the information.” Nation v. State, Dep’t of Correction, 144 Idaho 177, 188 , 158 P.3d 953, 964 (2007) (citing Baker v. Burlington N., Inc., 99 Idaho 688, 691 , 587 P.2d 829, 832 (1978)). | 2 | 2 |
Hoskins v. Howardgreen2 sentences2020In order to have an actionable claim for public disclosure of private facts, the plaintiff must prove the following three elements: (1) public disclosure, (2) the facts must be entitled to privacy, and (3) the public disclosure must be “offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person.” Id. at 317 , 971 P.2d at 1141 (citation omitted). 2020In order to have an actionable claim for public disclosure of private facts, the plaintiff must prove the following three elements: (1) public disclosure, (2) the facts must be entitled to privacy, and (3) the public disclosure must be “offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person.” Id. at 317 , 971 P.2d at 1141 (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Budget Truck Sales, LLC v. Tilleygreen1 sentence2021Budget Truck Sales, LLC v. Tilley, 163 Idaho 841 , 847, 419 P.3d 1139, 1145 (2018). | 1 | 1 |
City of McCall v. Buxtongreen2 sentences2015City of McCall v. Buxton, 146 Idaho 656, 662-63 , 201 P.3d 629, 635-36 (2009) (“Even when an attorney is negligent, that breach of duty may not be a proximate cause of the resulting damage to the client.”). 2015City of McCall v. Buxton, 146 Idaho 656, 662-63 , 201 P.3d 629, 635-36 (2009) (“Even when an attorney is negligent, that breach of duty may not be a proximate cause of the resulting damage to the client.”). | 1 | 1 |
W. R. Grimshaw Company and National Surety Corporation v. Nevil C. Withrow Co., Inc.green2 sentences2006Withrow Co., 248 F.2d 896, 904 (8th Cir.1957)), the Court declared that an actionable claim of duress requires three elements: “(1) that one side involuntarily accepted the terms of another; (2) that circumstances permitted no other alternative; and (3) that said circumstances were the result of coercive acts of the opposite party.” Mere reluctance to accept is not sufficient to constitute duress; the party claiming duress must show that there was no reasonable alternative. 2006Id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Faw v. Greenwood
green
2 sentences2021To state an actionable claim for fraud, a plaintiff must allege each of the nine elements of fraud with particularity: (1) a statement or representation of fact; (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the speaker’s knowledge about its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) the speaker’s intent that there be reliance; (6) the hearer’s ignorance of the falsity of the 7 Faw v. Greenwood, 101 Idaho 387 , 613 P.2d 1338 (1980). 14 statement; (7) reliance by the hearer; (8) justifiable reliance; and (9) resultant injury. 2021To state an actionable claim for fraud, a plaintiff must allege each of the nine elements of fraud with particularity: (1) a statement or representation of fact; (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the speaker’s knowledge about its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) the speaker’s intent that there be reliance; (6) the hearer’s ignorance of the falsity of the 7 Faw v. Greenwood, 101 Idaho 387 , 613 P.2d 1338 (1980). 14 statement; (7) reliance by the hearer; (8) justifiable reliance; and (9) resultant injury. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.