5 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Steptoe Live Stock Co. v. Gulleygreen2 sentences2000See, e.g., Town of Genoa v. Westfall, 141 Colo. 533 , 349 P.2d 370, 378 (1960); Steptoe Live Stock Co. v. Gulley, 53 Nev. 163 , 295 P. 772, 775 (1931). 2000See, e.g., Town of Genoa v. Westfall, 141 Colo. 533 , 349 P.2d 370, 378 (1960); Steptoe Live Stock Co. v. Gulley, 53 Nev. 163 , 295 P. 772, 775 (1931). | 2 | 2 |
Town of Genoa v. Westfallgreen2 sentences2000See, e.g., Town of Genoa v. Westfall, 141 Colo. 533 , 349 P.2d 370, 378 (1960); Steptoe Live Stock Co. v. Gulley, 53 Nev. 163 , 295 P. 772, 775 (1931). 2000See, e.g., Town of Genoa v. Westfall, 141 Colo. 533 , 349 P.2d 370, 378 (1960); Steptoe Live Stock Co. v. Gulley, 53 Nev. 163 , 295 P. 772, 775 (1931). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Joyce Livestock Co. v. United States
green
2 sentences2010What this argument obtusely refuses to acknowledge, however, is that in cases of instream stock watering, we have recognized a narrow exception to the diversion requirement because there is no need for a physical diversion when cattle owners deliver the water to their stock directly "by watering [them] in the springs, creeks, and rivers." Joyce, 144 Idaho at 8 , 156 P.3d at 509 . 2010What this argument obtusely refuses to acknowledge, however, is that in cases of instream stock watering, we have recognized a narrow exception to the diversion requirement because there is no need for a physical diversion when cattle owners deliver the water to their stock directly "by watering [them] in the springs, creeks, and rivers." Joyce, 144 Idaho at 8 , 156 P.3d at 509 . | 3 | 2010–2010 |
State, Dept. of Parks v. IDAHO DEPT, WATER ADMIN.
green
2 sentences2000While the statute did not expressly waive the diversion requirement, this Court “deem[ed] it clear that the legislature intended no physical diversion of water be required in the appropriation of the subject waters.” State, Dep’t of Parks, 96 Idaho at 445, 530 P.2d at 929 . 2000While the statute did not expressly waive the diversion requirement, this Court "deem[ed] it clear that the legislature intended no physical diversion of water be required in the appropriation of the subject waters." State, Dep't of Parks, 96 Idaho at 445, 530 P.2d at 929 . | 2 | 2000–2000 |
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.