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 1980–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Stockwell v. Stockwellgreen2 sentences2011The parental presumption “operates to preclude consideration of the best interest of the child unless the nonparent demonstrates either that the natural parent has abandoned the child, that the natural parent is unfit or that the child has been in the nonparent’s custody for an appreciable period of time.” In re Copenhaver, 124 Idaho at 892 , 865 P.2d at 983 (citing Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297, 299 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989)). 2011The parental presumption “operates to preclude consideration of the best interest of the child unless the nonparent demonstrates either that the natural parent has abandoned the child, that the natural parent is unfit or that the child has been in the nonparent’s custody for an appreciable period of time.” In re Copenhaver, 124 Idaho at 892 , 865 P.2d at 983 (citing Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297, 299 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989)). | 2 | 2 |
Rogers v. Yellowstone Park Companygreen2 sentences1980As Justice Shepard observed in his Yellowstone dissent, courts which have abolished interspousal immunity "have subsequently and logically been required to abolish the immunity between parent and child for negligent torts." Id. at 23 , 539 P.2d at 575 (Shepard, J., dissenting). 1980As Justice Shepard observed in his Yellowstone dissent, courts which have abolished interspousal immunity "have subsequently and logically been required to abolish the immunity between parent and child for negligent torts." Id. at 23 , 539 P.2d at 575 (Shepard, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Guardianship of Copenhaver
green
2 sentences2011The parental presumption “operates to preclude consideration of the best interest of the child unless the nonparent demonstrates either that the natural parent has abandoned the child, that the natural parent is unfit or that the child has been in the nonparent’s custody for an appreciable period of time.” In re Copenhaver, 124 Idaho at 892 , 865 P.2d at 983 (citing Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297, 299 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989)). 2011The parental presumption “operates to preclude consideration of the best interest of the child unless the nonparent demonstrates either that the natural parent has abandoned the child, that the natural parent is unfit or that the child has been in the nonparent’s custody for an appreciable period of time.” In re Copenhaver, 124 Idaho at 892 , 865 P.2d at 983 (citing Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297, 299 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989)). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
In Re VKS
green
2 sentences2011Mother and Father argue the Utah Court of Appeals case of In re V.K.S., 63 P.3d 1284 (Utah Ct.App.2003) provides authority that the parental presumption applies to the removal of the Guardians here. 2011Therefore, the Court declines to consider the constitutionality of the plain language of I.C. § 15-5-212(a) as applied to natural parents at this time. 6 Mother and Father argue the Utah Court of Appeals case of In re V.K.S., 63 P.3d 1284 (Utah Ct. App. 2003) provides authority that the parental presumption applies to the removal of the Guardians here. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Transamerica Insurance v. Royle
green
2 sentences1986At least the Montana Supreme Court, in Transamerica Insurance Co. v. Royal, 656 P.2d 820 (Mont. 1983), the case upon which we based our decision to grant rehearing, as the majority notes ante at 551, made its decision on a more judicious rationale than the presence of a "deep pocket." The Montana court recognized that the validity of the policy exclusion turned upon the question of whether or not Montana recognized the doctrine of parental immunity, not the reverse that parental immunity turned upon whether or not there was insurance. 1986At least the Montana Supreme Court, in Transamerica Insurance Co. v. Royal, 656 P.2d 820 (Mont. 1983), the case upon which we based our decision to grant rehearing, as the majority notes ante at 551, made its decision on a more judicious rationale than the presence of a "deep pocket." The Montana court recognized that the validity of the policy exclusion turned upon the question of whether or not Montana recognized the doctrine of parental immunity, not the reverse that parental immunity turned upon whether or not there was insurance. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Pedigo v. Rowley
green
2 sentences1983“There can be little argument but that the parental immunity of Mr. Garren from suit brought by his daughter Pedigo also bars third parties who are tortfeasors from seeking contribution.” (Emphasis in original.) Id., 101 Idaho at 205 , 610 P.2d 560 . 1983“There can be little argument but that the parental immunity of Mr. Garren from suit brought by his daughter Pedigo also bars third parties who are tortfeasors from seeking contribution.” (Emphasis in original.) Id., 101 Idaho at 205 , 610 P.2d 560 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Sorensen v. Sorensen
green
2 sentences1980E.g., Hebel v. Hebel, supra ; Sorenson v. Sorenson, 369 Mass. 350 , 339 N.E.2d 907 (1975); France v. A.P.A. 1980E.g., Hebel v. Hebel, supra ; Sorenson v. Sorenson, 369 Mass. 350 , 339 N.E.2d 907 (1975); France v. A.P.A. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Hewlett v. George
red
2 sentences1980The doctrine was first articulated in Hewellette v. George, 68 Miss. 703 , 9 So. 885 (1891), wherein the court, citing no authority but relying exclusively on policy, declined to interject itself into the family relationship between a mother and minor daughter, stating: “The peace of society, and of the families composing society, and a sound public policy, designed to subserve the repose of families and the best interests of society, forbid to the minor child a right to appear in court in the assertion of a claim to civil redress for personal injuries suffered at the hands of the parent. 1980The doctrine was first articulated in Hewellette v. George, 68 Miss. 703 , 9 So. 885 (1891), wherein the court, citing no authority but relying exclusively on policy, declined to interject itself into the family relationship between a mother and minor daughter, stating: "The peace of society, and of the families composing society, and a sound public policy, designed to subserve the repose of families and the best interests of society, forbid to the minor child a right to appear in court in the assertion of a claim to civil redress for personal injuries suffered at the hands of the parent. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Petersen Ex Rel. Petersen v. City & County of Honolulu
green
2 sentences1980Petersen v. City and County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 484 , 462 P.2d 1007 (1970); Briere v. Briere, supra ; Rupert v. Stienne, 90 Nev. 397 , 528 P.2d 1013 (1974). 1980Petersen v. City and County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 484 , 462 P.2d 1007 (1970); Briere v. Briere, supra ; Rupert v. Stienne, 90 Nev. 397 , 528 P.2d 1013 (1974). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Rupert Ex Rel. Rupert v. Stienne
green
2 sentences1980Petersen v. City and County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 484 , 462 P.2d 1007 (1970); Briere v. Briere, supra ; Rupert v. Stienne, 90 Nev. 397 , 528 P.2d 1013 (1974). 1980Petersen v. City and County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 484 , 462 P.2d 1007 (1970); Briere v. Briere, supra ; Rupert v. Stienne, 90 Nev. 397 , 528 P.2d 1013 (1974). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Goller v. White
green
2 sentences1980Goller v. White, 20 Wis.2d 402 , 122 N.W.2d 193 (1963). 1980Goller v. White, 20 Wis.2d 402 , 122 N.W.2d 193 (1963). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Hebel v. Hebel Ex Rel. Hebel
green
2 sentences1980E. g., Hebel v. Hebel, supra ; Sorenson v. Sorenson, 369 Mass. 350 , 339 N.E.2d 907 (1975); France v. A.P.A. 1980E.g., Hebel v. Hebel, supra ; Sorenson v. Sorenson, 369 Mass. 350 , 339 N.E.2d 907 (1975); France v. A.P.A. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Begley v. Kohl & Madden Printing Ink Co.
green
2 sentences1980Reasons that have traditionally been given as basis for the parental immunity doctrine have included: (1) the disruption of family tranquility and subsequent impairment of the foundations of American society, see, e.g., Begley v. Kohl & Madden Printing Ink Co., 157 Conn. 445 , 254 A.2d 907 (1969); Barlow v. Iblings, 261 Iowa 713 , 156 N.W.2d 105 (1968); Skinner v. Whitley, 281 N.C. 476 , 189 S.E.2d 230 (1972); (2) the threat to parental discipline and control, see, e.g., Begley v. Kohl & Madden Printing Ink Co., supra ; Barlow v. Iblings, supra ; Skinner v. Whitley, supra ; (3) the proliferati 1980Reasons that have traditionally been given as basis for the parental immunity doctrine have included: (1) the disruption of family tranquility and subsequent impairment of the foundations of American society, see, e.g., Begley v. Kohl & Madden Printing Ink Co., 157 Conn. 445 , 254 A.2d 907 (1969); Barlow v. Iblings, 261 Iowa 713 , 156 N.W.2d 105 (1968); Skinner v. Whitley, 281 N.C. 476 , 189 S.E.2d 230 (1972); (2) the threat to parental discipline and control, see, e.g., Begley v. Kohl & Madden Printing Ink Co., supra ; Barlow v. Iblings, supra ; Skinner v. Whitley, supra ; (3) the proliferati | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Skinner v. Whitley
green
2 sentences1980Reasons that have traditionally been given as basis for the parental immunity doctrine have included: (1) the disruption of family tranquility and subsequent impairment of the foundations of American society, see, e.g., Begley v. Kohl & Madden Printing Ink Co., 157 Conn. 445 , 254 A.2d 907 (1969); Barlow v. Iblings, 261 Iowa 713 , 156 N.W.2d 105 (1968); Skinner v. Whitley, 281 N.C. 476 , 189 S.E.2d 230 (1972); (2) the threat to parental discipline and control, see, e.g., Begley v. Kohl & Madden Printing Ink Co., supra ; Barlow v. Iblings, supra ; Skinner v. Whitley, supra ; (3) the proliferati 1980Reasons that have traditionally been given as basis for the parental immunity doctrine have included: (1) the disruption of family tranquility and subsequent impairment of the foundations of American society, see, e.g., Begley v. Kohl & Madden Printing Ink Co., 157 Conn. 445 , 254 A.2d 907 (1969); Barlow v. Iblings, 261 Iowa 713 , 156 N.W.2d 105 (1968); Skinner v. Whitley, 281 N.C. 476 , 189 S.E.2d 230 (1972); (2) the threat to parental discipline and control, see, e.g., Begley v. Kohl & Madden Printing Ink Co., supra ; Barlow v. Iblings, supra ; Skinner v. Whitley, supra ; (3) the proliferati | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Ooms v. Ooms
green
2 sentences1980Ooms v. Ooms, 164 Conn. 48 , 316 A.2d 783 (1972) (reaffirming parental immunity except where statutorily abolished in automobile accidents); Barlow v. Iblings, 261 Iowa 713 , 156 N.W.2d 105 (1968) (injuries to child on father’s business premises); Downs v. Poulin, 216 A.2d 29 (Me.1966) (attempt to sue estate of mother for injuries incurred in automobile accident); Montz v. Mendaloff, 40 Md.App. 220 , 388 A.2d 568 (1978), Skinner v. Whitley, 281 N.C. 476 , 189 S.E.2d 230 (1972) (parental immunity affirmed in automobile accident cases); see State Farm Mut. 1980Ooms v. Ooms, 164 Conn. 48 , 316 A.2d 783 (1972) (reaffirming parental immunity except where statutorily abolished in automobile accidents); Barlow v. Iblings, 261 Iowa 713 , 156 N.W.2d 105 (1968) (injuries to child on father’s business premises); Downs v. Poulin, 216 A.2d 29 (Me.1966) (attempt to sue estate of mother for injuries incurred in automobile accident); Montz v. Mendaloff, 40 Md.App. 220 , 388 A.2d 568 (1978), Skinner v. Whitley, 281 N.C. 476 , 189 S.E.2d 230 (1972) (parental immunity affirmed in automobile accident cases); see State Farm Mut. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Orefice v. Albert
green
2 sentences1980Reasons that have traditionally been given as basis for the parental immunity doctrine have included: (1) the disruption of family tranquility and subsequent impairment of the foundations of American society, see, e. g., Begley v. Kohl & Madden Printing Ink Co., 157 Conn. 445 , 254 A.2d 907 (1969); Barlow v. Iblings, 261 Iowa 713 , 156 N.W.2d 105 (1968); Skinner v. Whitley, 281 N.C. 476 , 189 S.E.2d 230 (1972); (2) the threat to parental discipline and control, see, e. g., Begley v. Kohl & Madden Printing Ink Co., supra; Barlow v. Iblings, supra ; Skinner v. Whitley, supra; (3) the proliferati 1980Reasons that have traditionally been given as basis for the parental immunity doctrine have included: (1) the disruption of family tranquility and subsequent impairment of the foundations of American society, see, e.g., Begley v. Kohl & Madden Printing Ink Co., 157 Conn. 445 , 254 A.2d 907 (1969); Barlow v. Iblings, 261 Iowa 713 , 156 N.W.2d 105 (1968); Skinner v. Whitley, 281 N.C. 476 , 189 S.E.2d 230 (1972); (2) the threat to parental discipline and control, see, e.g., Begley v. Kohl & Madden Printing Ink Co., supra ; Barlow v. Iblings, supra ; Skinner v. Whitley, supra ; (3) the proliferati | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Montz v. Mendaloff
green
2 sentences1980Ooms v. Ooms, 164 Conn. 48 , 316 A.2d 783 (1972) (reaffirming parental immunity except where statutorily abolished in automobile accidents); Barlow v. Iblings, 261 Iowa 713 , 156 N.W.2d 105 (1968) (injuries to child on father’s business premises); Downs v. Poulin, 216 A.2d 29 (Me.1966) (attempt to sue estate of mother for injuries incurred in automobile accident); Montz v. Mendaloff, 40 Md.App. 220 , 388 A.2d 568 (1978), Skinner v. Whitley, 281 N.C. 476 , 189 S.E.2d 230 (1972) (parental immunity affirmed in automobile accident cases); see State Farm Mut. 1980Ooms v. Ooms, 164 Conn. 48 , 316 A.2d 783 (1972) (reaffirming parental immunity except where statutorily abolished in automobile accidents); Barlow v. Iblings, 261 Iowa 713 , 156 N.W.2d 105 (1968) (injuries to child on father’s business premises); Downs v. Poulin, 216 A.2d 29 (Me.1966) (attempt to sue estate of mother for injuries incurred in automobile accident); Montz v. Mendaloff, 40 Md.App. 220 , 388 A.2d 568 (1978), Skinner v. Whitley, 281 N.C. 476 , 189 S.E.2d 230 (1972) (parental immunity affirmed in automobile accident cases); see State Farm Mut. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Downs v. Poulin
red
1 sentence1980Ooms v. Ooms, 164 Conn. 48 , 316 A.2d 783 (1972) (reaffirming parental immunity except where statutorily abolished in automobile accidents); Barlow v. Iblings, 261 Iowa 713 , 156 N.W.2d 105 (1968) (injuries to child on father’s business premises); Downs v. Poulin, 216 A.2d 29 (Me.1966) (attempt to sue estate of mother for injuries incurred in automobile accident); Montz v. Mendaloff, 40 Md.App. 220 , 388 A.2d 568 (1978), Skinner v. Whitley, 281 N.C. 476 , 189 S.E.2d 230 (1972) (parental immunity affirmed in automobile accident cases); see State Farm Mut. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Barlow Ex Rel. Iblings v. Iblings
green
2 sentences1980Reasons that have traditionally been given as basis for the parental immunity doctrine have included: (1) the disruption of family tranquility and subsequent impairment of the foundations of American society, see, e.g., Begley v. Kohl & Madden Printing Ink Co., 157 Conn. 445 , 254 A.2d 907 (1969); Barlow v. Iblings, 261 Iowa 713 , 156 N.W.2d 105 (1968); Skinner v. Whitley, 281 N.C. 476 , 189 S.E.2d 230 (1972); (2) the threat to parental discipline and control, see, e.g., Begley v. Kohl & Madden Printing Ink Co., supra ; Barlow v. Iblings, supra ; Skinner v. Whitley, supra ; (3) the proliferati 1980Reasons that have traditionally been given as basis for the parental immunity doctrine have included: (1) the disruption of family tranquility and subsequent impairment of the foundations of American society, see, e.g., Begley v. Kohl & Madden Printing Ink Co., 157 Conn. 445 , 254 A.2d 907 (1969); Barlow v. Iblings, 261 Iowa 713 , 156 N.W.2d 105 (1968); Skinner v. Whitley, 281 N.C. 476 , 189 S.E.2d 230 (1972); (2) the threat to parental discipline and control, see, e.g., Begley v. Kohl & Madden Printing Ink Co., supra ; Barlow v. Iblings, supra ; Skinner v. Whitley, supra ; (3) the proliferati | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.