5 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1932–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lewiston Orchards Irrigation District v. Gilmoregreen2 sentences2021Dist. v. Gilmore, 53 Idaho 377 , 23 P.2d 720, 722 (1933); Robinson v. Lemp, 29 Idaho 661 , 161 P. 1024, 1026 (1916) (“[T]itle to property held by a municipality for public use, such as for streets, parks, public building sites, etc., cannot be acquired by adverse possession, but the opposite rule prevails where the property is held by it for other than a public use.”). 2021Dist. v. Gilmore, 53 Idaho 377 , 23 P.2d 720, 722 (1933); Robinson v. Lemp, 29 Idaho 661 , 161 P. 1024, 1026 (1916) (“[T]itle to property held by a municipality for public use, such as for streets, parks, public building sites, etc., cannot be acquired by adverse possession, but the opposite rule prevails where the property is held by it for other than a public use.”). | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. Lempgreen2 sentences2021Dist. v. Gilmore, 53 Idaho 377 , 23 P.2d 720, 722 (1933); Robinson v. Lemp, 29 Idaho 661 , 161 P. 1024, 1026 (1916) (“[T]itle to property held by a municipality for public use, such as for streets, parks, public building sites, etc., cannot be acquired by adverse possession, but the opposite rule prevails where the property is held by it for other than a public use.”). 2021Dist. v. Gilmore, 53 Idaho 377 , 23 P.2d 720, 722 (1933); Robinson v. Lemp, 29 Idaho 661 , 161 P. 1024, 1026 (1916) (“[T]itle to property held by a municipality for public use, such as for streets, parks, public building sites, etc., cannot be acquired by adverse possession, but the opposite rule prevails where the property is held by it for other than a public use.”). | 1 | 1 |
Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroadgreen1 sentence1985(Non-liability of employers for work-caused injuries was "a rule of public policy, inasmuch as an opposite doctrine would... subject employers to unreasonable and often ruinous responsibilities, thereby embarrassing all branches of business.") [4] See, e.g., Williamson v. Smith, 83 N.M. 336 , 491 P.2d 1147, 1149 (1971); Prosser and Keeton on Torts, § 68 at 493-94 (5th ed. 1984). [5] See, e.g., Tiller, supra, at 318 U.S. 68 -69, 63 S.Ct. at 451-52 (J., Frankfurter, concurring): The phrase "assumption of risk" is an excellent illustration of the extent to which uncritical use of words bedevils t | 1 | 1 |
Williamson v. Smithgreen2 sentences1985(Non-liability of employers for work-caused injuries was "a rule of public policy, inasmuch as an opposite doctrine would... subject employers to unreasonable and often ruinous responsibilities, thereby embarrassing all branches of business.") [4] See, e.g., Williamson v. Smith, 83 N.M. 336 , 491 P.2d 1147, 1149 (1971); Prosser and Keeton on Torts, § 68 at 493-94 (5th ed. 1984). [5] See, e.g., Tiller, supra, at 318 U.S. 68 -69, 63 S.Ct. at 451-52 (J., Frankfurter, concurring): The phrase "assumption of risk" is an excellent illustration of the extent to which uncritical use of words bedevils t 1985(Non-liability of employers for work-caused injuries was "a rule of public policy, inasmuch as an opposite doctrine would... subject employers to unreasonable and often ruinous responsibilities, thereby embarrassing all branches of business.") [4] See, e.g., Williamson v. Smith, 83 N.M. 336 , 491 P.2d 1147, 1149 (1971); Prosser and Keeton on Torts, § 68 at 493-94 (5th ed. 1984). [5] See, e.g., Tiller, supra, at 318 U.S. 68 -69, 63 S.Ct. at 451-52 (J., Frankfurter, concurring): The phrase "assumption of risk" is an excellent illustration of the extent to which uncritical use of words bedevils t | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
INTERMOUNTAIN BUS. FORMS v. Shepard Bus. F. Co.
green
2 sentences1977Intermountain Business Forms, Inc. v. Shepard Business Forms Co., 96 Idaho 538, 540 , 531 P.2d 1183 (1975). 1977Intermountain Business Forms, Inc. v. Shepard Business Forms Co., 96 Idaho 538, 540 , 531 P.2d 1183 (1975). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Abbott v. Cooper
green
2 sentences1934Hence the opposite rule prevails in many jurisdictions.” In the very recent case of Abbott v. Cooper, 218 Cal. 425 , 23 Pac. (2d) 1027 , the California court said: “It is not contended by any party to the action that said arrests were made upon a warrant of arrest, or for a crime committed in the presence of said arresting officers, or that plaintiff was delivered to said jailers upon the authority of a mittimus, or that any declaration was made to the jailer by said officers that plaintiff had committed a crime in the presence of either of said arresting officers, which declaration may satisf 1934Hence the opposite rule prevails in many jurisdictions.” In the very recent case of Abbott v. Cooper, 218 Cal. 425 , 23 Pac. (2d) 1027 , the California court said: “It is not contended by any party to the action that said arrests were made upon a warrant of arrest, or for a crime committed in the presence of said arresting officers, or that plaintiff was delivered to said jailers upon the authority of a mittimus, or that any declaration was made to the jailer by said officers that plaintiff had committed a crime in the presence of either of said arresting officers, which declaration may satisf | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Bevercombe v. Denney & Co.
green
2 sentences1932Notwithstanding that the first proposition is supported by much respectable authority, this court in Bevercombe v. Denney & Co., 40 Ida. 34, 39 , 231 Pac. 427 , declared unequivocally for the opposite rule in the following, unambiguous announcement: “It is the general rule, we believe, that where it does not appear from the complaint that the contract sued on falls within the statute of frauds, the party relying on ■ the statute as a defense must allege it in his answer. 1932Notwithstanding that the first proposition is supported by much respectable authority, this court in Bevercombe v. Denney & Co., 40 Ida. 34, 39 , 231 Pac. 427 , declared unequivocally for the opposite rule in the following, unambiguous announcement: “It is the general rule, we believe, that where it does not appear from the complaint that the contract sued on falls within the statute of frauds, the party relying on ■ the statute as a defense must allege it in his answer. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
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.