5 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lavin v. Panhandle Lumber Co., Ltd.green2 sentences2011Deffenbaugh, 24 Idaho at 520 , 135 P. at 249-50 ; see Lavin, 51 Idaho at 5, 1 P.2d at [187] 190. 2011Deffenbaugh, 24 Idaho at 520 , 135 P. at 249-50 ; see Lavin, 51 Idaho at 5 , 1 P.2d at [187] 190. | 2 | 2 |
Viebrock v. Gillgreen2 sentences2003As a result, the Robideauxs claim the district court’s conclusion that they could not limit the nature and scope of the easement was in error and they should be allowed to install a gate that is easy to open and wide enough to accommodate the Lovitts’ use. “[A]n easement is the right to use the land of another for a specific purpose that is not inconsistent with the general use of the property by the owner.” Viebrock v. Gill, 125 Idaho 948, 952 , 877 P.2d 919, 923 (1994) (citing Abbott v. Nampa Sch. 2003As a result, the Robideauxs claim the district court’s conclusion that they could not limit the nature and scope of the easement was in error and they should be allowed to install a gate that is easy to open and wide enough to accommodate the Lovitts’ use. “[A]n easement is the right to use the land of another for a specific purpose that is not inconsistent with the general use of the property by the owner.” Viebrock v. Gill, 125 Idaho 948, 952 , 877 P.2d 919, 923 (1994) (citing Abbott v. Nampa Sch. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Deffenbaugh v. Washington Water Power Co.
green
2 sentences2011Deffenbaugh, 24 Idaho at 520 , 135 P. at 249-50 ; see Lavin, 51 Idaho at 5, 1 P.2d at [187] 190. 2011Deffenbaugh, 24 Idaho at 520 , 135 P. at 249-50 ; see Lavin, 51 Idaho at 5, 1 P.2d at [187] 190. | 2 | 1995–2011 |
La Bella Vita v. Amanda Shuler
green
2 sentences2018The Lees' failure to address the district court's application of the merger doctrine is fatal because operation of the merger doctrine was an independent ground for the district court's grant of summary judgment on the easement claim. "[T]he fact that one of the grounds may be in error is of no consequence and may be disregarded if the judgment can be sustained upon one of the other grounds." La Bella Vita, LLC v. Shuler , 158 Idaho 799 , 806, 353 P.3d 420 , 427 (2015) (quoting Andersen v. Prof'l Escrow Servs., Inc. , 141 Idaho 743 , 746, 118 P.3d 75 , 78 (2005) ). 2018The Lees' failure to address the district court's application of the merger doctrine is fatal because operation of the merger doctrine was an independent ground for the district court's grant of summary judgment on the easement claim. "[T]he fact that one of the grounds may be in error is of no consequence and may be disregarded if the judgment can be sustained upon one of the other grounds." La Bella Vita, LLC v. Shuler , 158 Idaho 799 , 806, 353 P.3d 420 , 427 (2015) (quoting Andersen v. Prof'l Escrow Servs., Inc. , 141 Idaho 743 , 746, 118 P.3d 75 , 78 (2005) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Andersen v. Professional Escrow Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018The Lees' failure to address the district court's application of the merger doctrine is fatal because operation of the merger doctrine was an independent ground for the district court's grant of summary judgment on the easement claim. "[T]he fact that one of the grounds may be in error is of no consequence and may be disregarded if the judgment can be sustained upon one of the other grounds." La Bella Vita, LLC v. Shuler , 158 Idaho 799 , 806, 353 P.3d 420 , 427 (2015) (quoting Andersen v. Prof'l Escrow Servs., Inc. , 141 Idaho 743 , 746, 118 P.3d 75 , 78 (2005) ). 2018The Lees' failure to address the district court's application of the merger doctrine is fatal because operation of the merger doctrine was an independent ground for the district court's grant of summary judgment on the easement claim. "[T]he fact that one of the grounds may be in error is of no consequence and may be disregarded if the judgment can be sustained upon one of the other grounds." La Bella Vita, LLC v. Shuler , 158 Idaho 799 , 806, 353 P.3d 420 , 427 (2015) (quoting Andersen v. Prof'l Escrow Servs., Inc. , 141 Idaho 743 , 746, 118 P.3d 75 , 78 (2005) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Seccombe v. Weeks
green
2 sentences2007In Seccombe , the grantors deeded part of their land to the grantees, "specifically excepting easements `in view.'" 115 Idaho at 436 , 767 P.2d at 279 . 2007In Seccombe , the grantors deeded part of their land to the grantees, "specifically excepting easements `in view.'" 115 Idaho at 436 , 767 P.2d at 279 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.