5 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pounds v. Denisongreen2 sentences1997As this Court has previously held, the purpose of the notice requirement is to "(1) save needless expense and litigation by providing an opportunity for amicable resolution of the differences between parties, (2) allow authorities to conduct a full investigation into the cause of the injury in order to determine the extent of the state's liability, if any, and (3) allow the state to prepare defenses." Pounds v. Denison, 120 Idaho 425, 426-27 , 816 P.2d 982, 983-84 (1991) (quoting Farber v. State, 102 Idaho 398, 401 , 630 P.2d 685, 688 (1981)). 1997As this Court has previously held, the purpose of the notice requirement is to "(1) save needless expense and litigation by providing an opportunity for amicable resolution of the differences between parties, (2) allow authorities to conduct a full investigation into the cause of the injury in order to determine the extent of the state's liability, if any, and (3) allow the state to prepare defenses." Pounds v. Denison, 120 Idaho 425, 426-27 , 816 P.2d 982, 983-84 (1991) (quoting Farber v. State, 102 Idaho 398, 401 , 630 P.2d 685, 688 (1981)). | 1 | 2 |
Mitchell v. Bingham Memorial Hospitalgreen2 sentences2020Mitchell v. Bingham Mem’l Hosp., 130 Idaho 420, 424 , 942 P.2d 544, 548 (1997) (quoting Pounds v. Denison, 120 Idaho 425 , 426–27, 816 P.2d 982 , 983–84 (1991)). 2020Mitchell v. Bingham Mem’l Hosp., 130 Idaho 420, 424 , 942 P.2d 544, 548 (1997) (quoting Pounds v. Denison, 120 Idaho 425 , 426–27, 816 P.2d 982 , 983–84 (1991)). | 1 | 1 |
Farber v. Stategreen2 sentences1997As this Court has previously held, the purpose of the notice requirement is to "(1) save needless expense and litigation by providing an opportunity for amicable resolution of the differences between parties, (2) allow authorities to conduct a full investigation into the cause of the injury in order to determine the extent of the state's liability, if any, and (3) allow the state to prepare defenses." Pounds v. Denison, 120 Idaho 425, 426-27 , 816 P.2d 982, 983-84 (1991) (quoting Farber v. State, 102 Idaho 398, 401 , 630 P.2d 685, 688 (1981)). 1997As this Court has previously held, the purpose of the notice requirement is to "(1) save needless expense and litigation by providing an opportunity for amicable resolution of the differences between parties, (2) allow authorities to conduct a full investigation into the cause of the injury in order to determine the extent of the state's liability, if any, and (3) allow the state to prepare defenses." Pounds v. Denison, 120 Idaho 425, 426-27 , 816 P.2d 982, 983-84 (1991) (quoting Farber v. State, 102 Idaho 398, 401 , 630 P.2d 685, 688 (1981)). | 1 | 1 |
Huff v. Uhlgreen2 sentences1997Compare Huff v. Uhl, 103 Idaho 274, 276 , 647 P.2d 730, 732 (1982) (Although not expressly a "written demand" pursuant to I.C. § 6-902(7), a written estimate of damages was held to provide sufficient notice of a tort claim because it contained enough information to alert the governmental agency that a claim was being prosecuted against it). 1997Compare Huff v. Uhl, 103 Idaho 274, 276 , 647 P.2d 730, 732 (1982) (Although not expressly a "written demand" pursuant to I.C. § 6-902(7), a written estimate of damages was held to provide sufficient notice of a tort claim because it contained enough information to alert the governmental agency that a claim was being prosecuted against it). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Taylor v. Soran Restaurant, Inc.
green
2 sentences2006The purpose of the notice requirement is to “give the employer or someone on his behalf timely opportunity to make an investigation of the accident and surrounding circumstances to avoid payment of an unjust claim.” Taylor, 131 Idaho at 528 , 960 P.2d at 1258 . 2006The purpose of the notice requirement is to “give the employer or someone on his behalf timely opportunity to make an investigation of the accident and surrounding circumstances to avoid payment of an unjust claim.” Taylor, 131 Idaho at 528 , 960 P.2d at 1258 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
STATE, DEPT. OF LAW ENFORCEMENT v. Engberg
neutral
2 sentences1989Department of Law Enforcement v. Engberg, 109 Idaho 530 , 708 P.2d 935 (Ct.App. 1985). 1989Department of Law Enforcement v. Engberg, 109 Idaho 530 , 708 P.2d 935 (Ct.App. 1985). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Gibbs v. State
green
2 sentences1986Gibbs v. State, 103 Idaho 758 , 653 P.2d 813 (Ct.App.1982). 1986Gibbs v. State, 103 Idaho 758 , 653 P.2d 813 (Ct.App.1982). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.