5 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1912–1999 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 |
|---|---|---|
Prier v. Refrigeration Engineering Co.green2 sentences1999Prier, 442 P.2d at 627 . 1999Id. at 626, citing C. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cannon v. Stockmon
green
1 sentence1951If a party is in possession continuously for five years, all the time claiming title exclusive of any other right, he is entitled to the benefit of the Statute of Limitations, no matter how many outstanding adverse claims he may purchase; and the question for the jury to determine on such claim is, whether upon all the evidence, he appears to have been continuously in possession during the time prescribed, claiming title exclusive of any other right.” Cannon v. Stockmon, 36 Cal. 535 , at pages 538-539; 2 C.J.S., Adverse Possession, § 151, page 716; 1 Am.Jur., p. 894, Par. 184. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
State v. Goering
neutral
2 sentences1937A person who is assaulted or interfered with by another luithout provocation ma/y use sufficient force to repel the attach without being guilty of assault even though he may not believe himself to be in danger of grievous bodily harm.” (Italics ours.) The character of instruction, as applied to a ease involving facts such as we have under consideration here, was considered by the Supreme Court of Iowa in the ease of State v. Goering, 106 Iowa, 636 , 77 N. W. 327 , and the court said: “The complaint made of this instruction is that it limits the right of defendant to act in self-defense to ease 1937A person who is assaulted or interfered with by another luithout provocation ma/y use sufficient force to repel the attach without being guilty of assault even though he may not believe himself to be in danger of grievous bodily harm.” (Italics ours.) The character of instruction, as applied to a ease involving facts such as we have under consideration here, was considered by the Supreme Court of Iowa in the ease of State v. Goering, 106 Iowa, 636 , 77 N. W. 327 , and the court said: “The complaint made of this instruction is that it limits the right of defendant to act in self-defense to ease | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Stein v. Morrison
green
2 sentences1933In Stein v. Morrison, 9 Ida. 426 , 75 Pac. 246 , it is said: *754 “It is not out of place here to observe that the courts cannot disregard the provisions of the constitution and statutes, matter not what the character of the defense may be.” Also: “It seems to us that to keep within the spirit of our constitution (section 1, article 2) and form of government which recognizes the independence and specific character of the ‘three distinct departments’ of government, that the judicial department could not attempt to prohibit either of the other departments from acting within the recognized scope 1933In Stein v. Morrison, 9 Ida. 426 , 75 Pac. 246 , it is said: *754 “It is not out of place here to observe that the courts cannot disregard the provisions of the constitution and statutes, matter not what the character of the defense may be.” Also: “It seems to us that to keep within the spirit of our constitution (section 1, article 2) and form of government which recognizes the independence and specific character of the ‘three distinct departments’ of government, that the judicial department could not attempt to prohibit either of the other departments from acting within the recognized scope | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Toncray v. Budge
green
2 sentences1933In Stein v. Morrison, 9 Ida. 426 , 75 Pac. 246 , it is said: *754 “It is not out of place here to observe that the courts cannot disregard the provisions of the constitution and statutes, matter not what the character of the defense may be.” Also: “It seems to us that to keep within the spirit of our constitution (section 1, article 2) and form of government which recognizes the independence and specific character of the ‘three distinct departments’ of government, that the judicial department could not attempt to prohibit either of the other departments from acting within the recognized scope 1933In Stein v. Morrison, 9 Ida. 426 , 75 Pac. 246 , it is said: *754 “It is not out of place here to observe that the courts cannot disregard the provisions of the constitution and statutes, matter not what the character of the defense may be.” Also: “It seems to us that to keep within the spirit of our constitution (section 1, article 2) and form of government which recognizes the independence and specific character of the ‘three distinct departments’ of government, that the judicial department could not attempt to prohibit either of the other departments from acting within the recognized scope | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Estrada v. Murphy
green
1 sentence1912(Estrada v. Murphy, 19 Cal. 248 ; Davis v. Davis, 26 Cal. 23 , 85 Am. | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Davis v. Davis
green
1 sentence1912(Estrada v. Murphy, 19 Cal. 248 ; Davis v. Davis, 26 Cal. 23 , 85 Am. | 1 | 1912–1912 |
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.