Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 26 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from State v. Barclay.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State v. Barclay Anchor | green | “justiciability issues, such as mootness, are freely reviewed.” | 7 |
| 2 | Webb v. Webb | green | “this court is obliged to raise mootness sua sponte because it is a jurisdictional issue.” | 4 |
| 3 | Neighbors for Responsible Growth v. Kootenai County | green | “the most obvious indicator that the two are not adverse.” | 3 |
| 4 | In Re Distribution of Water to Various Water Rights | green | “a petition for judicial review of a final order . . . must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the service date of the final order . . . .” | 3 |
| 5 | Grace at Twin Falls, LLC v. Jeppesen | green | “this court freely reviews questions of law.” | 3 |
| 6 | South Valley Ground Water v. ID Dept of Water Resources | green | “idaho code section 67-5273(2) confines the courts' jurisdiction to those petitions filed within the prescribed time period.” | 3 |
| 7 | South Valley Ground Water v. ID Dept of Water Resources | green | “one of the basic requirements for judicial review of an agency's final order is identification of the order being challenged in a timely petition for judicial review.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.