5 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. McPhiegreen2 sentences2023State v. McPhie, 104 Idaho 652, 655 , 662 P.2d 233, 236 (1983). 2023State v. McPhie, 104 Idaho 652, 655 , 662 P.2d 233, 236 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
Hart v. Deary High Schoolgreen2 sentences2021The policy behind this requirement is to “encourag[e] an employer and employee to work out their differences without interrupting the employment relationship.” Id. (citing Hart v. Deary High Sch., 126 Idaho 550, 553 , 887 P.2d 1057, 1060 (1994)). 2021The policy behind this requirement is to “encourag[e] an employer and employee to work out their differences without interrupting the employment relationship.” Id. (citing Hart v. Deary High Sch., 126 Idaho 550, 553 , 887 P.2d 1057, 1060 (1994)). | 1 | 1 |
Custom Meat Packing Company v. Martingreen2 sentences2021The policy behind this requirement is to “encourage the employer and the employee to adjust their differences and thus avoid interrupting the employment.” Ellis, 103 Idaho at 823 , 654 P.2d at 916 (quoting Custom Meat Packing Co. v. Martin, 85 Idaho 374, 384 , 379 P.2d 664, 670 (1963), overruled on other grounds by Parker v. St. 2021The policy behind this requirement is to “encourage the employer and the employee to adjust their differences and thus avoid interrupting the employment.” Ellis, 103 Idaho at 823 , 654 P.2d at 916 (quoting Custom Meat Packing Co. v. Martin, 85 Idaho 374, 384 , 379 P.2d 664, 670 (1963), overruled on other grounds by Parker v. St. | 1 | 1 |
Friends of Farm to Market v. Valley Countygreen2 sentences2009See Friends of Farm to Market v. Valley County, 137 Idaho 192, 197 , 46 P.3d 9, 14 (2002). 2009See Friends of Farm to Market v. Valley County, 137 Idaho 192, 197 , 46 P.3d 9, 14 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
McGee v. Stonegreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., Epstein v. Resor, 296 F.Supp. 214, 216 (N.D.Ca.1969), aff'd, 421 F.2d 930 (9th Cir. 1970) (post-enactment statements of legislators entitled to little or no weight because they are "not a part of the records of the legislative body"); McGee v. Stone, 522 A.2d 211, 216 (R.I.1987) ("Postenactment statements of legislators relating to legislative intent, however, are not part of the legislative history of the original enactment."). 2004See, e.g., Epstein v. Resor, 296 F.Supp. 214, 216 (N.D.Ca.1969), aff'd, 421 F.2d 930 (9th Cir.1970) (post-enactment statements of legislators entitled to little or no weight because they are “not a part of the records of the legislative body”); McGee v. Stone, 522 A.2d 211, 216 (R.I.1987) (“Postenactment statements of legislators relating to legislative intent, however, are not part of the legislative history of the original enactment.”). | 1 | 1 |
Epstein v. Resorgreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., Epstein v. Resor, 296 F.Supp. 214, 216 (N.D.Ca.1969), aff'd, 421 F.2d 930 (9th Cir. 1970) (post-enactment statements of legislators entitled to little or no weight because they are "not a part of the records of the legislative body"); McGee v. Stone, 522 A.2d 211, 216 (R.I.1987) ("Postenactment statements of legislators relating to legislative intent, however, are not part of the legislative history of the original enactment."). 2004See, e.g., Epstein v. Resor, 296 F.Supp. 214, 216 (N.D.Ca.1969), aff'd, 421 F.2d 930 (9th Cir.1970) (post-enactment statements of legislators entitled to little or no weight because they are “not a part of the records of the legislative body”); McGee v. Stone, 522 A.2d 211, 216 (R.I.1987) (“Postenactment statements of legislators relating to legislative intent, however, are not part of the legislative history of the original enactment.”). | 1 | 1 |
Julius Epstein v. Stanley Resor, Secretary of the Army Department of the Army Department Ofdefensegreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., Epstein v. Resor, 296 F.Supp. 214, 216 (N.D.Ca.1969), aff'd, 421 F.2d 930 (9th Cir. 1970) (post-enactment statements of legislators entitled to little or no weight because they are "not a part of the records of the legislative body"); McGee v. Stone, 522 A.2d 211, 216 (R.I.1987) ("Postenactment statements of legislators relating to legislative intent, however, are not part of the legislative history of the original enactment."). 2004See, e.g., Epstein v. Resor, 296 F.Supp. 214, 216 (N.D.Ca.1969), aff'd, 421 F.2d 930 (9th Cir.1970) (post-enactment statements of legislators entitled to little or no weight because they are “not a part of the records of the legislative body”); McGee v. Stone, 522 A.2d 211, 216 (R.I.1987) (“Postenactment statements of legislators relating to legislative intent, however, are not part of the legislative history of the original enactment.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Parker v. St. Maries Plywood
green
2 sentences2021Maries Plywood, 101 Idaho 415 , 614 P.2d 955 (1980)). 2021Maries Plywood, 101 Idaho 415 , 614 P.2d 955 (1980)). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Ellis v. Northwest Fruit & Produce
green
2 sentences2021The policy behind this requirement is to “encourage the employer and the employee to adjust their differences and thus avoid interrupting the employment.” Ellis, 103 Idaho at 823 , 654 P.2d at 916 (quoting Custom Meat Packing Co. v. Martin, 85 Idaho 374, 384 , 379 P.2d 664, 670 (1963), overruled on other grounds by Parker v. St. 2021The policy behind this requirement is to “encourage the employer and the employee to adjust their differences and thus avoid interrupting the employment.” Ellis, 103 Idaho at 823 , 654 P.2d at 916 (quoting Custom Meat Packing Co. v. Martin, 85 Idaho 374, 384 , 379 P.2d 664, 670 (1963), overruled on other grounds by Parker v. St. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Salem-Keizer Ass'n of Classified Employees v. Salem-Keizer School District 241
green
2 sentences2004The policy behind this rule is well stated in the Oregon case, Salem Keizer Ass'n of Classified Employees v. Salem Keizer School Dist. 24J, 186 Or.App. 19 , 61 P.3d 970 (203): First, post-enactment statements of legislators are not part of the record of the Legislative Assembly that are considered the contemporaneous "history" that is appropriate for courts to consult. 2004The policy behind this rule is well stated in the Oregon case, Salem Keizer Ass'n of Classified Employees v. Salem Keizer School Dist. 24J, 186 Or.App. 19 , 61 P.3d 970 (203): First, post-enactment statements of legislators are not part of the record of the Legislative Assembly that are considered the contemporaneous "history" that is appropriate for courts to consult. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Pedigo v. Rowley
green
2 sentences2002Id. 2002Id. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.