5 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Keesee v. Fetzekgreen2 sentences2002Keesee v. Fetzek, 111 Idaho 360, 362 , 723 P.2d 904, 906 (Ct.App.1986). 2002Keesee v. Fetzek, 111 Idaho 360, 362 , 723 P.2d 904, 906 (Ct.App.1986). | 3 | 3 |
Williams Lake Lands, Inc. v. LeMoyne Development, Inc.green2 sentences2011Accord Thomas v. Arkoosh Produce, Inc., 137 Idaho 352, 357 , 48 P.3d 1241, 1246 (2002) (noting quasiestoppel is a broadly remedial doctrine, often applied ad hoc to specific fact patterns); Williams Lake Lands, Inc. v. LeMoyne Dev., Inc., 108 Idaho 826, 830 , 702 P.2d 864, 868 (Ct.App.1985) ("Because quasi-estoppel is an equitable doctrine, its application depends upon a case by case analysis of the equities involved, rather than upon precise definitional standards.”). 2011Accord Thomas v. Arkoosh Produce, Inc., 137 Idaho 352, 357 , 48 P.3d 1241, 1246 (2002) (noting quasiestoppel is a broadly remedial doctrine, often applied ad hoc to specific fact patterns); Williams Lake Lands, Inc. v. LeMoyne Dev., Inc., 108 Idaho 826, 830 , 702 P.2d 864, 868 (Ct.App.1985) ("Because quasi-estoppel is an equitable doctrine, its application depends upon a case by case analysis of the equities involved, rather than upon precise definitional standards.”). | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Arkoosh Produce, Inc.green2 sentences2011Accord Thomas v. Arkoosh Produce, Inc., 137 Idaho 352, 357 , 48 P.3d 1241, 1246 (2002) (noting quasiestoppel is a broadly remedial doctrine, often applied ad hoc to specific fact patterns); Williams Lake Lands, Inc. v. LeMoyne Dev., Inc., 108 Idaho 826, 830 , 702 P.2d 864, 868 (Ct.App.1985) ("Because quasi-estoppel is an equitable doctrine, its application depends upon a case by case analysis of the equities involved, rather than upon precise definitional standards.”). 2011Accord Thomas v. Arkoosh Produce, Inc., 137 Idaho 352, 357 , 48 P.3d 1241, 1246 (2002) (noting quasiestoppel is a broadly remedial doctrine, often applied ad hoc to specific fact patterns); Williams Lake Lands, Inc. v. LeMoyne Dev., Inc., 108 Idaho 826, 830 , 702 P.2d 864, 868 (Ct.App.1985) ("Because quasi-estoppel is an equitable doctrine, its application depends upon a case by case analysis of the equities involved, rather than upon precise definitional standards.”). | 1 | 1 |
Schiewe v. Farwellgreen2 sentences1993Schiewe v. Farwell, 125 Idaho 70, 73 , 867 P.2d 944, 947 (Ct.App.1992); Keesee v. Fetzek, 111 Idaho 360, 362 , 723 P.2d 904, 906 (Ct.App.1986). 1993Schiewe v. Farwell, 125 Idaho 70, 73 , 867 P.2d 944, 947 (Ct.App.1992); Keesee v. Fetzek, 111 Idaho 360, 362 , 723 P.2d 904, 906 (Ct.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
KTVB, INC. v. Boise Citygreen2 sentences1986It "precludes a party from asserting, to another's disadvantage, a right inconsistent with a position previously taken by him." KTVB, Inc. v. Boise City, 94 Idaho 279, 281 , 486 P.2d 992, 994 (1971). 1986It "precludes a party from asserting, to another's disadvantage, a right inconsistent with a position previously taken by him." KTVB, Inc. v. Boise City, 94 Idaho 279, 281 , 486 P.2d 992, 994 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||