5 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1984–1986 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ellis v. Butterfieldgreen2 sentences1986For this proposition they cite Ellis v. Butterfield, 98 Idaho 644, 650 , 570 P.2d 1334, 1340 (1977). 1 The entirety of Ellis’ reasoning on this issue is as follows: “Having terminated the contract, they [the vendors of real estate] cannot later assert the attorney fee clause in it while defending successfully against appellants’ action to reinstate the contract.” Id. (footnote omitted). 1986For this proposition they cite Ellis v. Butterfield, 98 Idaho 644, 650 , 570 P.2d 1334, 1340 (1977). 1 The entirety of Ellis’ reasoning on this issue is as follows: “Having terminated the contract, they [the vendors of real estate] cannot later assert the attorney fee clause in it while defending successfully against appellants’ action to reinstate the contract.” Id. (footnote omitted). | 3 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mandel v. Lackner
green
2 sentences1984Similarly, in Mandel v. Lackner, 92 Cal. App.3d 747 , 155 Cal.Rptr. 269 (1979), a California appellate court considered the attorney fee claim of a plaintiff who had prevailed in public interest litigation. 1984Similarly, in Mandel v. Lackner, 92 Cal. App.3d 747 , 155 Cal.Rptr. 269 (1979), a California appellate court considered the attorney fee claim of a plaintiff who had prevailed in public interest litigation. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.