5 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 2020–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Miramontesgreen2 sentences2023However, we have now rejected the adverse ruling requirement in favor of a broader standard where “[i]t is not mandatory for a party-appellant to obtain an adverse ruling from the trial court to preserve an issue for appellate review, so long as the party’s position on that issue was presented to the trial court with argument and authority and noticed for hearing.” State v. Miramontes, 170 Idaho 920, 924 , 517 P.3d 849, 853 (2022). 7 As a result, we now disavow the “some chance of success” rule from Murray and the cases applying it. 2023However, we have now rejected the adverse ruling requirement in favor of a broader standard where “[i]t is not mandatory for a party-appellant to obtain an adverse ruling from the trial court to preserve an issue for appellate review, so long as the party’s position on that issue was presented to the trial court with argument and authority and noticed for hearing.” State v. Miramontes, 170 Idaho 920, 924 , 517 P.3d 849, 853 (2022). 7 As a result, we now disavow the “some chance of success” rule from Murray and the cases applying it. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Zichkogreen2 sentences2026State v. Zichko, 129 Idaho 259, 263 , 923 P.2d 966, 970 (1996). 2026State v. Zichko, 129 Idaho 259, 263 , 923 P.2d 966, 970 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
Stewart v. the City of Idaho Fallsgreen2 sentences2022Stewart v. City of Idaho Falls, 61 Idaho 471 , 103 P.2d 697, 700 (1940) (emphasis added). 2022Stewart v. City of Idaho Falls, 61 Idaho 471 , 103 P.2d 697, 700 (1940) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Huntsmangreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., State v. Huntsman, 146 Idaho 580, 585 , 199 P.3d 155, 160 (Ct. App. 2008) (requiring appellate record reveal adverse ruling forming basis of assignment for appeal); State v. Amerson, 129 Idaho 395, 401 , 925 P.2d 399, 405 (Ct. App. 1996) (same); State v. Fodge, 121 Idaho 192, 195 , 824 P.2d 123, 126 (1992) (ruling issues not raised below may not be considered for first time on appeal). 3 III. 2020See, e.g., State v. Huntsman, 146 Idaho 580, 585 , 199 P.3d 155, 160 (Ct. App. 2008) (requiring appellate record reveal adverse ruling forming basis of assignment for appeal); State v. Amerson, 129 Idaho 395, 401 , 925 P.2d 399, 405 (Ct. App. 1996) (same); State v. Fodge, 121 Idaho 192, 195 , 824 P.2d 123, 126 (1992) (ruling issues not raised below may not be considered for first time on appeal). 3 III. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Amersongreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., State v. Huntsman, 146 Idaho 580, 585 , 199 P.3d 155, 160 (Ct. App. 2008) (requiring appellate record reveal adverse ruling forming basis of assignment for appeal); State v. Amerson, 129 Idaho 395, 401 , 925 P.2d 399, 405 (Ct. App. 1996) (same); State v. Fodge, 121 Idaho 192, 195 , 824 P.2d 123, 126 (1992) (ruling issues not raised below may not be considered for first time on appeal). 3 III. 2020See, e.g., State v. Huntsman, 146 Idaho 580, 585 , 199 P.3d 155, 160 (Ct. App. 2008) (requiring appellate record reveal adverse ruling forming basis of assignment for appeal); State v. Amerson, 129 Idaho 395, 401 , 925 P.2d 399, 405 (Ct. App. 1996) (same); State v. Fodge, 121 Idaho 192, 195 , 824 P.2d 123, 126 (1992) (ruling issues not raised below may not be considered for first time on appeal). 3 III. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fodgegreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., State v. Huntsman, 146 Idaho 580, 585 , 199 P.3d 155, 160 (Ct. App. 2008) (requiring appellate record reveal adverse ruling forming basis of assignment for appeal); State v. Amerson, 129 Idaho 395, 401 , 925 P.2d 399, 405 (Ct. App. 1996) (same); State v. Fodge, 121 Idaho 192, 195 , 824 P.2d 123, 126 (1992) (ruling issues not raised below may not be considered for first time on appeal). 3 III. 2020See, e.g., State v. Huntsman, 146 Idaho 580, 585 , 199 P.3d 155, 160 (Ct. App. 2008) (requiring appellate record reveal adverse ruling forming basis of assignment for appeal); State v. Amerson, 129 Idaho 395, 401 , 925 P.2d 399, 405 (Ct. App. 1996) (same); State v. Fodge, 121 Idaho 192, 195 , 824 P.2d 123, 126 (1992) (ruling issues not raised below may not be considered for first time on appeal). 3 III. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lanham v. Fleenor
green
2 sentences2023Instead, we fully reiterate the standard advocated by Respondents and cited in Lanham, 164 Idaho at 359, 429 P.3d at 1235 , that a plaintiff in a legal malpractice case must generally prove a “case within a case” to establish proximate cause. 2023Instead, we fully reiterate the standard advocated by Respondents and cited in Lanham, 164 Idaho at 359, 429 P.3d at 1235 , that a plaintiff in a legal malpractice case must generally prove a “case within a case” to establish proximate cause. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
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.