Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Farmers Insurance Group v. Reedgreen2 sentences1989Unless the [company] can show that something shields it from the statutory obligation “imposed by law” to pay damages caused by the policy holder to “any person,” the household exclusion clause is flatly and unmistakably in violation of Idaho’s compulsory insurance law. 109 Idaho at 851 , 712 P.2d at 552 . 1989Unless the [company] can show that something shields it from the statutory obligation “imposed by law” to pay damages caused by the policy holder to “any person,” the household exclusion clause is flatly and unmistakably in violation of Idaho’s compulsory insurance law. 109 Idaho at 851 , 712 P.2d at 552 . | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Browder
green
1 sentence1989App. 709 , 685 P.2d 444 (1984), rev. den. 298 Or. 172 , 691 P.2d 481 (1984) the Oregon Court of Appeals considered the enforceability of a household exclusion clause under Oregon's Financial Responsibility Law (the FRL). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Dowdy v. Allstate Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences1989In Dowdy v. Allstate Insurance Co., 68 Or.App. 709 , 685 P.2d 444 (1984), rev. den. 298 Or. 172 , 691 P.2d 481 (1984) the Oregon Court of Appeals considered the enforceability of a household exclusion clause under Oregon’s Financial Responsibility Law (the FRL). 1989In Dowdy v. Allstate Insurance Co., 68 Or.App. 709 , 685 P.2d 444 (1984), rev. den. 298 Or. 172 , 691 P.2d 481 (1984) the Oregon Court of Appeals considered the enforceability of a household exclusion clause under Oregon’s Financial Responsibility Law (the FRL). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Baughman
neutral
2 sentences1989In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Baughman, 57 Or.App. 576 , 646 P.2d 102 (1982) the Oregon Court of Appeals commented on Lee and Chaffin in the context of a case involving a similar household exclusion clause. 1989In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Baughman, 57 Or.App. 576 , 646 P.2d 102 (1982) the Oregon Court of Appeals commented on Lee and Chaffin in the context of a case involving a similar household exclusion clause. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Transamerica Insurance v. Royle
green
2 sentences1986When considering the same issue, and an identically-worded statute, in last year’s Transamerica case, the Montana Supreme Court unanimously held: The effect of the language of the Mandatory Insurance Law requires the liability policy to protect against bodily injury and property damage to “any person.” In so providing, the legislature has expressly outlawed the “household exclusion.” Transamerica, 656 P.2d at 823 . 1986When considering the same issue, and an identically-worded statute, in last year's Transamerica case, the Montana Supreme Court unanimously held: The effect of the language of the Mandatory Insurance Law requires the liability policy to protect against bodily injury and property damage to "any person." In so providing, the legislature has expressly outlawed the "household exclusion." Transamerica, 656 P.2d at 823 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.