5 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Arizona v. Californiagreen2 sentences2026Where no judicial resources have been spent on the resolution of a question, trial courts must be cautious about raising a preclusion bar sua sponte, thereby eroding the principle of party presentation so basic to our system of adjudication. 530 U.S. at 412–13 (internal citation and quotations marks omitted). 2026As set forth above, “[w]here no judicial resources have been spent on the resolution of a question, trial courts must be cautious about raising a preclusion bar sua sponte, thereby eroding the principle of party presentation so basic to our system of adjudication.” Deon, 157 Idaho at 669 , 339 P.3d at 554 (quoting Arizona, 530 U.S. at 412–13). | 1 | 3 |
Trudy Deon v. H & J, Inc.green2 sentences2026As set forth above, “[w]here no judicial resources have been spent on the resolution of a question, trial courts must be cautious about raising a preclusion bar sua sponte, thereby eroding the principle of party presentation so basic to our system of adjudication.” Deon, 157 Idaho at 669 , 339 P.3d at 554 (quoting Arizona, 530 U.S. at 412–13). 2026As set forth above, “[w]here no judicial resources have been spent on the resolution of a question, trial courts must be cautious about raising a preclusion bar sua sponte, thereby eroding the principle of party presentation so basic to our system of adjudication.” Deon, 157 Idaho at 669 , 339 P.3d at 554 (quoting Arizona, 530 U.S. at 412–13). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Nastoff
green
2 sentences2015Skunkcap, 157 Idaho at 230 , 335 P.3d at 570 ; Nastoff 124 Idaho at 670 , 862 P.2d at 1092 . 2015Skunkcap, 157 Idaho at 230 , 335 P.3d at 570 ; Nastoff 124 Idaho at 670 , 862 P.2d at 1092 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. James Leroy Skunkcap
green
2 sentences2015Skunkcap, 157 Idaho at 230 , 335 P.3d at 570 ; Nastoff 124 Idaho at 670 , 862 P.2d at 1092 . 2015Skunkcap, 157 Idaho at 230 , 335 P.3d at 570 ; Nastoff 124 Idaho at 670 , 862 P.2d at 1092 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Gottesman v. General Motors Corporation
green
2 sentences1985These two cases are obvious examples of the application of this preclusion doctrine.” 222 F.Supp. at 344 . 1985These two cases are obvious examples of the application of this preclusion doctrine." 222 F. Supp. at 344 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Rand v. . Gillette
green
2 sentences1985Rand v. Gillette, 199 N.C. 462 , 154 S.E. 746 (1930). 1985Rand v. Gillette, 199 N.C. 462 , 154 S.E. 746 (1930). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.