Huff v. Singleton’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 2020
9 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Suitts v. Nix · Jensen v. City of Pocatello · Langley v. State, Industrial Special Indemnity Fund · Pimley v. Best Values, Inc. · Harris v. Electrical Wholesale
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When reviewing decisions of the Industrial Commission, this Court is limited to reviewing questions of law. Idaho Const. Art. V, § 9; Pimley v. Best Values, Inc., 132 Idaho 432, 434 , 974 P.2d 78, 80 (1999). This Court will not disturb factual findings supported by substantial and competent evidence. Frank v. Bunker Hill Co., 142 Idaho 126, 130 , 124 P.3d 1002, 1006 (2005). Where there is conflicting evidence, but the findings of the Commission are supported by substantial, competent evidence, the findings “must be sustained regardless of whether this Court may have reached a different conclusion.” Harris v. Electrical Wholesale, 141 Idaho 1, 3 , 105 P.3d 267, 269 (2004).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“This Court adheres to the rule that persons acting pro se are held to the same standards and rules as those represented by attorneys.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Substantial and competent evidence is 'relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.