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.
15 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Munson v. Stategreen2 sentences2026Munson v. State, 128 Idaho 639, 642-43 , 917 P.2d 796, 799-800 (1996); Hayes, 143 Idaho at 90-91 , 137 P.3d at 477-78 ; State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 204-05 , 786 P.2d 594, 595-96 (Ct. App. 1990). 2026Munson v. State, 128 Idaho 639, 642-43 , 917 P.2d 796, 799-800 (1996); Hayes, 143 Idaho at 90-91 , 137 P.3d at 477-78 ; State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 204-05 , 786 P.2d 594, 595-96 (Ct. App. 1990). | 9 | 10 |
State v. Leegreen2 sentences2017See also State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 204 , 786 P.2d 2 594, 595 (Ct. App. 1990) (holding that under the mailbox rule pro se inmate’s documents are considered filed when they are delivered to prison authorities for the purpose of mailing to the court clerk). 2016See also State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 204 , 782 P.2d 594 , 595 (Ct. App. 1990) (holding that, under the mailbox rule, pro se inmates’ documents are considered filed when they are delivered to prison authorities for the purpose of mailing to the court clerk). | 5 | 6 |
Hayes v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Ritchie appeals. 1 See Hayes v. State, 143 Idaho 88, 91 , 137 P.3d 475, 478 (Ct. App. 2006) (noting that under the mailbox rule, a pro se inmate’s documents are considered filed when they are delivered to prison authorities for the purpose of mailing to the court clerk). 2 Although the district court’s notice of intent to dismiss indicated the district court’s intent to dismiss the petition as untimely, the notice also included language in its conclusion that Ritchie failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact. 2018Ritchie appeals. 1 See Hayes v. State, 143 Idaho 88, 91 , 137 P.3d 475, 478 (Ct. App. 2006) (noting that under the mailbox rule, a pro se inmate’s documents are considered filed when they are delivered to prison authorities for the purpose of mailing to the court clerk). 2 Although the district court’s notice of intent to dismiss indicated the district court’s intent to dismiss the petition as untimely, the notice also included language in its conclusion that Ritchie failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact. | 4 | 5 |
Driver v. SI CORP.green2 sentences2006Munson v. State, 128 Idaho 639, 642 , 917 P.2d 796, 799 (1996). . "[N]o matter what the characterization of the action, it appears that it must commence by a filing having the characteristics of a complaint____” Driver v. SI Corp., 139 Idaho 423, 429 , 80 P.3d 1024, 1030 (2003). . 2006Munson v. State, 128 Idaho 639, 642 , 917 P.2d 796, 799 (1996). . "[N]o matter what the characterization of the action, it appears that it must commence by a filing having the characteristics of a complaint____” Driver v. SI Corp., 139 Idaho 423, 429 , 80 P.3d 1024, 1030 (2003). . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hoffmangreen2 sentences1996The district court relied upon the Idaho Court of Appeals holding in State v. Hoffman, 114 Idaho 139, 140 , 754 P.2d 452, 453 (Ct.App.1988), for its conclusion that the mailbox rule did not apply to the filing of a petition for post-conviction relief. 1996The district court relied upon the Idaho Court of Appeals holding in State v. Hoffman, 114 Idaho 139, 140 , 754 P.2d 452, 453 (Ct.App.1988), for its conclusion that the mailbox rule did not apply to the filing of a petition for post-conviction relief. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McCabe v. Craven
green
2 sentences2009McCabe v. Craven, 145 Idaho 954, 956 , 188 P.3d 896 , 898 n. 1 (2008). 7 . 2009McCabe v. Craven, 145 Idaho 954, 956 , 188 P.3d 896 , 898 n. 1 (2008). 7 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.