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 2 courts 1987–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Envirosafe Services of Idaho, Inc. v. County of Owyheegreen2 sentences2010In Envirosafe, this Court stated, “The doctrine of implied preemption *659 typically applies in instances where, despite the lack of specific language preempting regulation by local government entities, the state has acted in the area in such a pervasive manner that it must be assumed that it intended to occupy the entire field of regulation.” 112 Idaho at 689 , 735 P.2d at 1000 . 2010In Envirosafe, this Court stated, “The doctrine of implied preemption *659 typically applies in instances where, despite the lack of specific language preempting regulation by local government entities, the state has acted in the area in such a pervasive manner that it must be assumed that it intended to occupy the entire field of regulation.” 112 Idaho at 689 , 735 P.2d at 1000 . | 1 | 2 |
United Tavern Owners v. Philadelphia School Districtgreen2 sentences1992Caesar, 101 Idaho at 161 , 610 P.2d at 520 , citing United Tavern Owners of Philadelphia v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, 441 Pa. 274 , 272 A.2d 868, 870 (1971). 1992Caesar, 101 Idaho at 161 , 610 P.2d at 520 , citing United Tavern Owners of Philadelphia v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, 441 Pa. 274 , 272 A.2d 868, 870 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
Township of Cascade v. Cascade Resource Recovery, Incgreen2 sentences1987Township of Cascade v. Cascade, Resource Recovery Inc., 118 Mich.App. 580 , 325 N.W.2d 500, 502 (Mich.App.1982). 1987Township of Cascade v. Cascade, Resource Recovery Inc., 118 Mich.App. 580 , 325 N.W.2d 500, 502 (Mich.App.1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Caesar v. State
green
2 sentences1992Our Supreme Court recognized the doctrine of implied preemption in Caesar v. State, 101 Idaho 158 , 610 P.2d 517 (1980): Where it can be inferred from a state statute that the state has intended to fully occupy or preempt a particular area, to the exclusion of municipalities, a municipal ordinance in that area will be held to be in conflict with the state law, even if the state law does not so specifically state. 1992Our Supreme Court recognized the doctrine of implied preemption in Caesar v. State, 101 Idaho 158 , 610 P.2d 517 (1980): Where it can be inferred from a state statute that the state has intended to fully occupy or preempt a particular area, to the exclusion of municipalities, a municipal ordinance in that area will be held to be in conflict with the state law, even if the state law does not so specifically state. | 3 | 1987–1993 |
Sunny Farms, Ltd. v. North Codorus Township & O.U.C.H, Inc.
green
2 sentences1987Fondessy Enterprises v. City of Oregon, 23 Ohio St.3d 213 , 492 N.E.2d 797 (1986) (holding that municipal regulation of a hazardous waste facility was permitted as it did not conflict with state law, but defining “conflict” by stating “the test is whether the ordinance permits or licenses that which the statute forbids and prohibits and vice versa.” 492 N.E.2d at 801 ); Sharon Steel Corp. v. City of Fairmont, 334 S.E.2d 616 (W.Va.1985) (holding based on the unique status and import given that state’s common law cause of action for nuisance); Sunny Farms Ltd. v. North Cordorus Township, 81 Pa.C 1987Fondessy Enterprises v. City of Oregon, 23 Ohio St.3d 213 , 492 N.E.2d 797 (1986) (holding that municipal regulation of a hazardous waste facility was permitted as it did not conflict with state law, but defining “conflict” by stating “the test is whether the ordinance permits or licenses that which the statute forbids and prohibits and vice versa.” 492 N.E.2d at 801 ); Sharon Steel Corp. v. City of Fairmont, 334 S.E.2d 616 (W.Va.1985) (holding based on the unique status and import given that state’s common law cause of action for nuisance); Sunny Farms Ltd. v. North Cordorus Township, 81 Pa.C | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Sharon Steel Corp. v. City of Fairmont
green
1 sentence1987Fondessy Enterprises v. City of Oregon, 23 Ohio St.3d 213 , 492 N.E.2d 797 (1986) (holding that municipal regulation of a hazardous waste facility was permitted as it did not conflict with state law, but defining “conflict” by stating “the test is whether the ordinance permits or licenses that which the statute forbids and prohibits and vice versa.” 492 N.E.2d at 801 ); Sharon Steel Corp. v. City of Fairmont, 334 S.E.2d 616 (W.Va.1985) (holding based on the unique status and import given that state’s common law cause of action for nuisance); Sunny Farms Ltd. v. North Cordorus Township, 81 Pa.C | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Water Resources Dept. v. City of Klamath Falls
green
2 sentences1987Fondessy Enterprises v. City of Oregon, 23 Ohio St.3d 213 , 492 N.E.2d 797 (1986) (holding that municipal regulation of a hazardous waste facility was permitted as it did not conflict with state law, but defining “conflict” by stating “the test is whether the ordinance permits or licenses that which the statute forbids and prohibits and vice versa.” 492 N.E.2d at 801 ); Sharon Steel Corp. v. City of Fairmont, 334 S.E.2d 616 (W.Va.1985) (holding based on the unique status and import given that state’s common law cause of action for nuisance); Sunny Farms Ltd. v. North Cordorus Township, 81 Pa.C 1987Fondessy Enterprises v. City of Oregon, 23 Ohio St.3d 213 , 492 N.E.2d 797 (1986) (holding that municipal regulation of a hazardous waste facility was permitted as it did not conflict with state law, but defining “conflict” by stating “the test is whether the ordinance permits or licenses that which the statute forbids and prohibits and vice versa.” 492 N.E.2d at 801 ); Sharon Steel Corp. v. City of Fairmont, 334 S.E.2d 616 (W.Va.1985) (holding based on the unique status and import given that state’s common law cause of action for nuisance); Sunny Farms Ltd. v. North Cordorus Township, 81 Pa.C | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Fondessy Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Oregon
green
2 sentences1987Fondessy Enterprises v. City of Oregon, 23 Ohio St.3d 213 , 492 N.E.2d 797 (1986) (holding that municipal regulation of a hazardous waste facility was permitted as it did not conflict with state law, but defining “conflict” by stating “the test is whether the ordinance permits or licenses that which the statute forbids and prohibits and vice versa.” 492 N.E.2d at 801 ); Sharon Steel Corp. v. City of Fairmont, 334 S.E.2d 616 (W.Va.1985) (holding based on the unique status and import given that state’s common law cause of action for nuisance); Sunny Farms Ltd. v. North Cordorus Township, 81 Pa.C 1987Fondessy Enterprises v. City of Oregon, 23 Ohio St.3d 213 , 492 N.E.2d 797 (1986) (holding that municipal regulation of a hazardous waste facility was permitted as it did not conflict with state law, but defining “conflict” by stating “the test is whether the ordinance permits or licenses that which the statute forbids and prohibits and vice versa.” 492 N.E.2d at 801 ); Sharon Steel Corp. v. City of Fairmont, 334 S.E.2d 616 (W.Va.1985) (holding based on the unique status and import given that state’s common law cause of action for nuisance); Sunny Farms Ltd. v. North Cordorus Township, 81 Pa.C | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.