5 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Atwood v. Smithgreen2 sentences2026When reviewing a district court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to amend for an abuse of discretion, the “boundaries of that discretion require that ‘[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.’ ” McCreery v. King, 172 Idaho 598, 604 , 535 P.3d 574, 580 (2023) (alteration in original) (quoting I.R.C.P. 15(a)(2)). “[T]hat discretion permits the trial court to consider ‘whether the amended pleading sets out a valid claim, whether the opposing party would be prejudiced by any undue delay, or whether the opposing party has an available defense to the newly added claim.’” Id 2026When reviewing a district court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to amend for an abuse of discretion, the “boundaries of that discretion require that ‘[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.’ ” McCreery v. King, 172 Idaho 598, 604 , 535 P.3d 574, 580 (2023) (alteration in original) (quoting I.R.C.P. 15(a)(2)). “[T]hat discretion permits the trial court to consider ‘whether the amended pleading sets out a valid claim, whether the opposing party would be prejudiced by any undue delay, or whether the opposing party has an available defense to the newly added claim.’” Id | 4 | 4 |
Spur Products Corp. v. Stoel Rives LLPgreen2 sentences2024The court may not, however, weigh the sufficiency of the evidence related to the additional claim. 4 Atwood v. Smith, 143 Idaho 110, 115 , 138 P.3d 310, 315 (2006) (quoting Spur Products Corp. v. Stoel Rives LLP, 142 Idaho 41, 44 , 122 P.3d 300, 303 (2005)). 2024The court may not, however, weigh the sufficiency of the evidence related to the additional claim. 4 Atwood v. Smith, 143 Idaho 110, 115 , 138 P.3d 310, 315 (2006) (quoting Spur Products Corp. v. Stoel Rives LLP, 142 Idaho 41, 44 , 122 P.3d 300, 303 (2005)). | 2 | 2 |
McCreery v. King, M.D.green2 sentences2026When reviewing a district court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to amend for an abuse of discretion, the “boundaries of that discretion require that ‘[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.’ ” McCreery v. King, 172 Idaho 598, 604 , 535 P.3d 574, 580 (2023) (alteration in original) (quoting I.R.C.P. 15(a)(2)). “[T]hat discretion permits the trial court to consider ‘whether the amended pleading sets out a valid claim, whether the opposing party would be prejudiced by any undue delay, or whether the opposing party has an available defense to the newly added claim.’” Id 2026When reviewing a district court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to amend for an abuse of discretion, the “boundaries of that discretion require that ‘[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.’ ” McCreery v. King, 172 Idaho 598, 604 , 535 P.3d 574, 580 (2023) (alteration in original) (quoting I.R.C.P. 15(a)(2)). “[T]hat discretion permits the trial court to consider ‘whether the amended pleading sets out a valid claim, whether the opposing party would be prejudiced by any undue delay, or whether the opposing party has an available defense to the newly added claim.’” Id | 1 | 2 |
Black Canyon Racquetball Club, Inc. v. Idaho First National Bankgreen2 sentences2005Black Canyon Racquetball Club, Inc. v. Idaho First Nat'l Bank, N.A., 119 Idaho 171, 175 , 804 P.2d 900, 904 (1991) (citation omitted). 2005Black Canyon Racquetball Club, Inc. v. Idaho First Nat'l Bank, N.A., 119 Idaho 171, 175 , 804 P.2d 900, 904 (1991) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.