5 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1891–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Catledge v. Transport Tire Co., Inc.green2 sentences1989"A party seeking relief from a final judgment under the provisions of I.R.C.P. 60(b) must bring a motion therefor within the applicable time period and assert facts which bring the case within the purview of the rule." Catledge v. Transport Tire Co., Inc., 107 Idaho 602, 606 , 691 P.2d 1217, 1221 (1984). "[T]o be entitled to relief under I.R.C.P. 60(b), the moving party must allege grounds and plead facts bringing it within the terms of the rule." Puphal v. Puphal, 105 Idaho 302, 306 , 669 P.2d 191, 195 (1983). 1989"A party seeking relief from a final judgment under the provisions of I.R.C.P. 60(b) must bring a motion therefor within the applicable time period and assert facts which bring the case within the purview of the rule." Catledge v. Transport Tire Co., Inc., 107 Idaho 602, 606 , 691 P.2d 1217, 1221 (1984). "[T]o be entitled to relief under I.R.C.P. 60(b), the moving party must allege grounds and plead facts bringing it within the terms of the rule." Puphal v. Puphal, 105 Idaho 302, 306 , 669 P.2d 191, 195 (1983). | 1 | 2 |
New Mexico and Arizona Land Company v. Elkinsgreen1 sentence2012Yet another test determines that substances which are minerals within the scientific, geological, and practical meanings of the term constitute minerals within the purview of a clause reserving all minerals. 53A Am.Jur.2d Mines and Minerals § 2; see also Dyegard Land P’ship v. Hoover, 39 S.W.3d 300, 311 (Tex.App.2001) (holding that water is not a mineral because it is “not ‘rare’ and ‘exceptional’ in character,” and is too closely related to the surface itself); Bambauer v. Menjoulet, 214 Cal.App.2d 871 , 29 Cal.Rptr. 874, 876 (1963) (concluding that though gravel “belongs to the mineral kingd | 1 | 1 |
Bambauer v. Menjouletgreen2 sentences2012Yet another test determines that substances which are minerals within the scientific, geological, and practical meanings of the term constitute minerals within the purview of a clause reserving all minerals. 53A Am.Jur.2d Mines and Minerals § 2; see also Dyegard Land P’ship v. Hoover, 39 S.W.3d 300, 311 (Tex.App.2001) (holding that water is not a mineral because it is “not ‘rare’ and ‘exceptional’ in character,” and is too closely related to the surface itself); Bambauer v. Menjoulet, 214 Cal.App.2d 871 , 29 Cal.Rptr. 874, 876 (1963) (concluding that though gravel “belongs to the mineral kingd 2012Yet another test determines that substances which are minerals within the scientific, geological, and practical meanings of the term constitute minerals within the purview of a clause reserving all minerals. 53A Am.Jur.2d Mines and Minerals § 2; see also Dyegard Land P’ship v. Hoover, 39 S.W.3d 300, 311 (Tex.App.2001) (holding that water is not a mineral because it is “not ‘rare’ and ‘exceptional’ in character,” and is too closely related to the surface itself); Bambauer v. Menjoulet, 214 Cal.App.2d 871 , 29 Cal.Rptr. 874, 876 (1963) (concluding that though gravel “belongs to the mineral kingd | 1 | 1 |
Dyegard Land Partnership v. Hoovergreen1 sentence2012Yet another test determines that substances which are minerals within the scientific, geological, and practical meanings of the term constitute minerals within the purview of a clause reserving all minerals. 53A Am.Jur.2d Mines and Minerals § 2; see also Dyegard Land P’ship v. Hoover, 39 S.W.3d 300, 311 (Tex.App.2001) (holding that water is not a mineral because it is “not ‘rare’ and ‘exceptional’ in character,” and is too closely related to the surface itself); Bambauer v. Menjoulet, 214 Cal.App.2d 871 , 29 Cal.Rptr. 874, 876 (1963) (concluding that though gravel “belongs to the mineral kingd | 1 | 1 |
Puphal v. Puphalgreen2 sentences1989"A party seeking relief from a final judgment under the provisions of I.R.C.P. 60(b) must bring a motion therefor within the applicable time period and assert facts which bring the case within the purview of the rule." Catledge v. Transport Tire Co., Inc., 107 Idaho 602, 606 , 691 P.2d 1217, 1221 (1984). "[T]o be entitled to relief under I.R.C.P. 60(b), the moving party must allege grounds and plead facts bringing it within the terms of the rule." Puphal v. Puphal, 105 Idaho 302, 306 , 669 P.2d 191, 195 (1983). 1989"A party seeking relief from a final judgment under the provisions of I.R.C.P. 60(b) must bring a motion therefor within the applicable time period and assert facts which bring the case within the purview of the rule." Catledge v. Transport Tire Co., Inc., 107 Idaho 602, 606 , 691 P.2d 1217, 1221 (1984). "[T]o be entitled to relief under I.R.C.P. 60(b), the moving party must allege grounds and plead facts bringing it within the terms of the rule." Puphal v. Puphal, 105 Idaho 302, 306 , 669 P.2d 191, 195 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
Compton v. Comptongreen2 sentences1984See Compton v. Compton, 101 Idaho 328 , 612 P.2d 1175 , (1980); Hearst Corp. v. Keller, 100 Idaho 10 , 592 P.2d 66 (1979). 1984See Compton v. Compton, 101 Idaho 328 , 612 P.2d 1175 , (1980); Hearst Corp. v. Keller, 100 Idaho 10 , 592 P.2d 66 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hearst Corp. v. Keller
green
2 sentences1984See Compton v. Compton, 101 Idaho 328 , 612 P.2d 1175 , (1980); Hearst Corp. v. Keller, 100 Idaho 10 , 592 P.2d 66 (1979). 1984See Compton v. Compton, 101 Idaho 328 , 612 P.2d 1175 , (1980); Hearst Corp. v. Keller, 100 Idaho 10 , 592 P.2d 66 (1979). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Black v. City of Lewiston
green
2 sentences1891We do not think this case comes within the purview of the rule laid down in Black v. City of Lewiston, 2 Idaho, 276 , 13 Pac. 80 . 1891We do not think this case comes within the purview of the rule laid down in Black v. City of Lewiston, 2 Idaho, 276 , 13 Pac. 80 . | 1 | 1891–1891 |
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.