payment claim in Idaho

5 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1915–2014 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.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Keybank National Ass'n v. Pal I, LLCgreen idaho · 2013 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014I.C § 12-120(1). 4 “For I.C. § 12-120(1) to apply, the pleading must specifically allege that the amount pleaded does not exceed $35,000.” Keybank Nat’l Ass’n v. PAL I, LLC, 155 Idaho 287, 297 , 311 P.3d 299, 309 (2013) (citing Mickelsen v. Broadway Ford, Inc., 153 Idaho 149, 156 , 280 P.3d 176, 183 (2012)). 2014I.C § 12-120(1). 4 “For I.C. § 12-120(1) to apply, the pleading must specifically allege that the amount pleaded does not exceed $35,000.” Keybank Nat’l Ass’n v. PAL I, LLC, 155 Idaho 287, 297 , 311 P.3d 299, 309 (2013) (citing Mickelsen v. Broadway Ford, Inc., 153 Idaho 149, 156 , 280 P.3d 176, 183 (2012)).	2	2
Tanner Mickelsen v. Broadway Ford, Inc.green idaho · 2012 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014I.C § 12-120(1). 4 “For I.C. § 12-120(1) to apply, the pleading must specifically allege that the amount pleaded does not exceed $35,000.” Keybank Nat’l Ass’n v. PAL I, LLC, 155 Idaho 287, 297 , 311 P.3d 299, 309 (2013) (citing Mickelsen v. Broadway Ford, Inc., 153 Idaho 149, 156 , 280 P.3d 176, 183 (2012)). 2014I.C § 12-120(1). 4 “For I.C. § 12-120(1) to apply, the pleading must specifically allege that the amount pleaded does not exceed $35,000.” Keybank Nat’l Ass’n v. PAL I, LLC, 155 Idaho 287, 297 , 311 P.3d 299, 309 (2013) (citing Mickelsen v. Broadway Ford, Inc., 153 Idaho 149, 156 , 280 P.3d 176, 183 (2012)).	2	2
Buckskin Properties, Inc. v. Valley Countygreen idaho · 2013 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013Buckskin Props., Inc. v. Valley Cnty., 154 Idaho 486, 494-96 , 300 P.3d 18, 26-28 (2013). 2013Buckskin Props., Inc. v. Valley Cnty., 154 Idaho 486, 494-96 , 300 P.3d 18, 26-28 (2013).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

Case	Cited	Years
Irwin v. County of Yuba green cal · 1898 2 sentences 1932J. 562, sec. 264; 7 Cal. Jur. 539, sec. 105.) It is also a well-settled rule that the payment of such claim cannot be allowed upon the theory that the services performed for which compensation is claimed were beneficial to the county. (7 Cal. Jur. 539, sec. 105; Gibson v. Sacramento County, 37 Cal. App. 523 , 174 Pac. 935 ; Irwin v. County of Yuba, 119 Cal. 686 , 52 Pac. 35 .) It is well established that the right of an officer to demand expenses incurred by him in the performance of an official duty must be found in the Constitution or the statutes confirming it, either directly or by necessa 1932J. 562, sec. 264; 7 Cal. Jur. 539, sec. 105.) It is also a well-settled rule that the payment of such claim cannot be allowed upon the theory that the services performed for which compensation is claimed were beneficial to the county. (7 Cal. Jur. 539, sec. 105; Gibson v. Sacramento County, 37 Cal. App. 523 , 174 Pac. 935 ; Irwin v. County of Yuba, 119 Cal. 686 , 52 Pac. 35 .) It is well established that the right of an officer to demand expenses incurred by him in the performance of an official duty must be found in the Constitution or the statutes confirming it, either directly or by necessa	1	1932–1932
Gibson v. County of Sacramento green calctapp · 1918 2 sentences 1932J. 562, sec. 264; 7 Cal. Jur. 539, sec. 105.) It is also a well-settled rule that the payment of such claim cannot be allowed upon the theory that the services performed for which compensation is claimed were beneficial to the county. (7 Cal. Jur. 539, sec. 105; Gibson v. Sacramento County, 37 Cal. App. 523 , 174 Pac. 935 ; Irwin v. County of Yuba, 119 Cal. 686 , 52 Pac. 35 .) It is well established that the right of an officer to demand expenses incurred by him in the performance of an official duty must be found in the Constitution or the statutes confirming it, either directly or by necessa 1932J. 562, sec. 264; 7 Cal. Jur. 539, sec. 105.) It is also a well-settled rule that the payment of such claim cannot be allowed upon the theory that the services performed for which compensation is claimed were beneficial to the county. (7 Cal. Jur. 539, sec. 105; Gibson v. Sacramento County, 37 Cal. App. 523 , 174 Pac. 935 ; Irwin v. County of Yuba, 119 Cal. 686 , 52 Pac. 35 .) It is well established that the right of an officer to demand expenses incurred by him in the performance of an official duty must be found in the Constitution or the statutes confirming it, either directly or by necessa	1	1932–1932
Crutcher v. Cram neutral idaho · 1871 1 sentence 1915(Gibson v. Kay, 68 Or. 589 , 137 Pac. 864 ; State v. Brown, 10 Or. 215 ; Crutcher v. Cram, 1 Ida. 372 .) A warrant drawn by the state auditor is but prima facie, and not conclusive evidence of the validity of the allowed claim, and unless there is authority of law for the payment of such claim, the treasurer may refuse, and indeed it is his duty to refuse, to pay the warrant, even if funds are appropriated.	1	1915–1915
State ex rel. Crawford v. Hastings neutral wis · 1860 1 sentence 1915(Goldsmith v. Baker City, 31 Or. 249 , 49 Pac. 973 ; State v. Lindsley, 3 Wash. 125 , 27 Pac. 1019 ; State v. Brown, 10 Or. 215 ; Shattuck v. Kincaid, 31 Or. 379 , 49 Pac. 758 .) In the case of the State v. Hastings, 10 Wis. 525 , the court said: “And in respect to the auditor, to whom there is a delegation of authority to do all acts connected with accounts and claims against the state, and to certify them to the treasurer for payment, it may be said that he is a general agent.	1	1915–1915
State ex rel. Post-Intelligencer Publishing Co. v. Lindsley neutral wash · 1891 2 sentences 1915(Goldsmith v. Baker City, 31 Or. 249 , 49 Pac. 973 ; State v. Lindsley, 3 Wash. 125 , 27 Pac. 1019 ; State v. Brown, 10 Or. 215 ; Shattuck v. Kincaid, 31 Or. 379 , 49 Pac. 758 .) In the case of the State v. Hastings, 10 Wis. 525 , the court said: “And in respect to the auditor, to whom there is a delegation of authority to do all acts connected with accounts and claims against the state, and to certify them to the treasurer for payment, it may be said that he is a general agent. 1915(Goldsmith v. Baker City, 31 Or. 249 , 49 Pac. 973 ; State v. Lindsley, 3 Wash. 125 , 27 Pac. 1019 ; State v. Brown, 10 Or. 215 ; Shattuck v. Kincaid, 31 Or. 379 , 49 Pac. 758 .) In the case of the State v. Hastings, 10 Wis. 525 , the court said: “And in respect to the auditor, to whom there is a delegation of authority to do all acts connected with accounts and claims against the state, and to certify them to the treasurer for payment, it may be said that he is a general agent.	1	1915–1915
State v. Brown green or · 1882 2 sentences 1915(Gibson v. Kay, 68 Or. 589 , 137 Pac. 864 ; State v. Brown, 10 Or. 215 ; Crutcher v. Cram, 1 Ida. 372 .) A warrant drawn by the state auditor is but prima facie, and not conclusive evidence of the validity of the allowed claim, and unless there is authority of law for the payment of such claim, the treasurer may refuse, and indeed it is his duty to refuse, to pay the warrant, even if funds are appropriated. 1915(Goldsmith v. Baker City, 31 Or. 249 , 49 Pac. 973 ; State v. Lindsley, 3 Wash. 125 , 27 Pac. 1019 ; State v. Brown, 10 Or. 215 ; Shattuck v. Kincaid, 31 Or. 379 , 49 Pac. 758 .) In the case of the State v. Hastings, 10 Wis. 525 , the court said: “And in respect to the auditor, to whom there is a delegation of authority to do all acts connected with accounts and claims against the state, and to certify them to the treasurer for payment, it may be said that he is a general agent.	1	1915–1915
Goldsmith v. Baker City green or · 1897 2 sentences 1915(Goldsmith v. Baker City, 31 Or. 249 , 49 Pac. 973 ; State v. Lindsley, 3 Wash. 125 , 27 Pac. 1019 ; State v. Brown, 10 Or. 215 ; Shattuck v. Kincaid, 31 Or. 379 , 49 Pac. 758 .) In the case of the State v. Hastings, 10 Wis. 525 , the court said: “And in respect to the auditor, to whom there is a delegation of authority to do all acts connected with accounts and claims against the state, and to certify them to the treasurer for payment, it may be said that he is a general agent. 1915(Goldsmith v. Baker City, 31 Or. 249 , 49 Pac. 973 ; State v. Lindsley, 3 Wash. 125 , 27 Pac. 1019 ; State v. Brown, 10 Or. 215 ; Shattuck v. Kincaid, 31 Or. 379 , 49 Pac. 758 .) In the case of the State v. Hastings, 10 Wis. 525 , the court said: “And in respect to the auditor, to whom there is a delegation of authority to do all acts connected with accounts and claims against the state, and to certify them to the treasurer for payment, it may be said that he is a general agent.	1	1915–1915
Shattuck v. Kincaid green or · 1897 2 sentences 1915(Goldsmith v. Baker City, 31 Or. 249 , 49 Pac. 973 ; State v. Lindsley, 3 Wash. 125 , 27 Pac. 1019 ; State v. Brown, 10 Or. 215 ; Shattuck v. Kincaid, 31 Or. 379 , 49 Pac. 758 .) In the case of the State v. Hastings, 10 Wis. 525 , the court said: “And in respect to the auditor, to whom there is a delegation of authority to do all acts connected with accounts and claims against the state, and to certify them to the treasurer for payment, it may be said that he is a general agent. 1915(Goldsmith v. Baker City, 31 Or. 249 , 49 Pac. 973 ; State v. Lindsley, 3 Wash. 125 , 27 Pac. 1019 ; State v. Brown, 10 Or. 215 ; Shattuck v. Kincaid, 31 Or. 379 , 49 Pac. 758 .) In the case of the State v. Hastings, 10 Wis. 525 , the court said: “And in respect to the auditor, to whom there is a delegation of authority to do all acts connected with accounts and claims against the state, and to certify them to the treasurer for payment, it may be said that he is a general agent.	1	1915–1915
Gibson v. Kay green or · 1914 2 sentences 1915(Gibson v. Kay, 68 Or. 589 , 137 Pac. 864 ; State v. Brown, 10 Or. 215 ; Crutcher v. Cram, 1 Ida. 372 .) A warrant drawn by the state auditor is but prima facie, and not conclusive evidence of the validity of the allowed claim, and unless there is authority of law for the payment of such claim, the treasurer may refuse, and indeed it is his duty to refuse, to pay the warrant, even if funds are appropriated. 1915(Gibson v. Kay, 68 Or. 589 , 137 Pac. 864 ; State v. Brown, 10 Or. 215 ; Crutcher v. Cram, 1 Ida. 372 .) A warrant drawn by the state auditor is but prima facie, and not conclusive evidence of the validity of the allowed claim, and unless there is authority of law for the payment of such claim, the treasurer may refuse, and indeed it is his duty to refuse, to pay the warrant, even if funds are appropriated.	1	1915–1915

Where else courts name it

NY 128 (1848–2026) CA 72 (1860–2026) IL 69 (1885–2024) FL 58 (1922–2024) TX 54 (1873–2023) GA 36 (1895–2017) OR 34 (1897–2024) IN 32 (1875–2023) PA 31 (1842–2022) CT 30 (1913–2025) AL 30 (1856–2011) OH 25 (1886–2024) WA 19 (1901–2017) LA 19 (1855–2021) MI 18 (1898–2025) MD 18 (1847–2025) IA 18 (1873–2004) KS 17 (1889–1981) NJ 17 (1889–2022) KY 16 (1865–2024) AZ 15 (1906–2021) WV 15 (1900–2022) OK 15 (1892–2010) AR 14 (1909–2004) TN 14 (1921–2014) MO 14 (1868–2014) NE 14 (1882–1980) CO 13 (1885–2014) MA 10 (1873–2004) VA 10 (1884–2024) NC 9 (1902–1993) SD 7 (1905–1959) WY 7 (1905–2021) NM 7 (1885–2024) WI 6 (1881–2013) MT 6 (1897–1952) UT 6 (1926–2021) MN 5 (1864–1993) VT 5 (1861–1990) ID 5 (1915–2014) RI 4 (1895–2014) MS 4 (1922–1961) HI 4 (1922–2010) NV 3 (1986–2014) ND 3 (1919–1985) SC 2 (1960–1960) DE 2 (1934–2022) NH 2 (1869–1882)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check