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.
13 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1908–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jackson v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2017See also Jackson v. United States, 498 A.2d 185 (D.C. 1985) (absent showing that trial court obtained the defendant’s personal waiver of his right to jury trial in compliance with procedures contemplated by statute and rule providing right to jury trial, defendant’s convictions were per se reversible error). 2017See also Jackson v. United States, 498 A.2d 185 (D.C. 1985) (absent showing that trial court obtained the defendant’s personal waiver of his right to jury trial in compliance with procedures contemplated by statute and rule providing right to jury trial, defendant’s convictions were per se reversible error). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Bakergreen2 sentences2017In State v. Baker, 170 P.3d 727, 728 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007), “the trial court confirmed with the prosecutor and defense counsel their desire to submit the matter on a stipulated record,” and thereafter found the defendant guilty. 2017In State v. Baker, 170 P.3d 727, 728 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007), “the trial court confirmed with the prosecutor and defense counsel their desire to submit the matter on a stipulated record,” and thereafter found the defendant guilty. | 3 | 3 |
Fortune v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2017Most other jurisdictions that have considered the precise issue presented here hold that a defective waiver of the right to a jury trial is reversible error, without a showing of actual prejudice, whether the requirement of a personal waiver derives from state constitutional 9 provisions, from statutes, or from court rule. 5 For example, in Fortune v. United States, 59 A.3d 949, 954-55 (D.C. 2013), the trial court failed to obtain Fortune’s personal waiver of his right to a jury trial as required by statute before conducting a court trial. 2017Most other jurisdictions that have considered the precise issue presented here hold that a defective waiver of the right to a jury trial is reversible error, without a showing of actual prejudice, whether the requirement of a personal waiver derives from state constitutional 9 provisions, from statutes, or from court rule. 5 For example, in Fortune v. United States, 59 A.3d 949, 954-55 (D.C. 2013), the trial court failed to obtain Fortune’s personal waiver of his right to a jury trial as required by statute before conducting a court trial. | 3 | 3 |
Levine v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2012Id. at 626 , 80 S.Ct. at 1047 , 4 L.Ed.2d at 1000-01 (Brennan, J. dissenting). 2012Id. at 626 , 80 S.Ct. at 1047 , 4 L.Ed.2d at 1000-01 (Brennan, J. dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Vasquez
green
2 sentences2020This Court reversed, holding that “failure to obtain a personal waiver of jury trial from the defendant, either orally or in writing in open court is a structural defect, which constitutes fundamental error.” Id. at 564, 416 P.3d at 115 . 2020This Court reversed, holding that “failure to obtain a personal waiver of jury trial from the defendant, either orally or in writing in open court is a structural defect, which constitutes fundamental error.” Id. at 564, 416 P.3d at 115 . | 3 | 2019–2020 |
State v. Swan
green
2 sentences2017After considering the importance of the fundamental right to a jury trial as expressed by the United States Supreme Court and authority from other jurisdictions (whether based upon statute, court rule, or state constitution) requiring a defendant’s personal waiver, this Court held that a waiver may not be accepted “unless the defendant, after being advised by the court of his right to a trial by jury, personally waives his right to trial by jury, either in writing or in open court for the record.” Id. at 966 , 703 P.2d at 730 (quoting American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice, Vo 2017After considering the importance of the fundamental right to a jury trial as expressed by the United States Supreme Court and authority from other jurisdictions (whether based upon statute, court rule, or state constitution) requiring a defendant’s personal waiver, this Court held that a waiver may not be accepted “unless the defendant, after being advised by the court of his right to a trial by jury, personally waives his right to trial by jury, either in writing or in open court for the record.” Id. at 966 , 703 P.2d at 730 (quoting American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice, Vo | 3 | 2015–2017 |
United States v. C. Wesley Bird
green
2 sentences1986United States v. Bird, 621 F.2d 989 (9th Cir.1980); United States v. Gillings, 568 F.2d 1307 (9th Cir.1978). 1986United States v. Bird, 621 F.2d 989 (9th Cir.1980); United States v. Gillings, 568 F.2d 1307 (9th Cir.1978). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
United States v. Francis E. Gillings and Ruth Gillings
green
2 sentences1986United States v. Bird, 621 F.2d 989 (9th Cir.1980); United States v. Gillings, 568 F.2d 1307 (9th Cir.1978). 1986United States v. Bird, 621 F.2d 989 (9th Cir.1980); United States v. Gillings, 568 F.2d 1307 (9th Cir.1978). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Sterrett v. Sweeney
neutral
2 sentences1951Sterrett v. Sweeney, 15 Idaho 416 , 98 P. 418 , 20 L.R.A.,N.S., 963, 128 Am. 1951Sterrett v. Sweeney, 15 Idaho 416 , 98 P. 418 , 20 L.R.A.,N.S., 963, 128 Am. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
State v. White
green
2 sentences1951State v. White, 71 Kan. 356 , 80 P. 589 , & Ann.Cas. 132; State v. Ford, 117 Kan. 735 , 232 P. 1023 . 1951State v. White, 71 Kan. 356 , 80 P. 589 , & Ann.Cas. 132; State v. Ford, 117 Kan. 735 , 232 P. 1023 . | 1 | 1951–1951 |
State v. Ford
green
2 sentences1951State v. White, 71 Kan. 356 , 80 P. 589 , & Ann.Cas. 132; State v. Ford, 117 Kan. 735 , 232 P. 1023 . 1951State v. White, 71 Kan. 356 , 80 P. 589 , & Ann.Cas. 132; State v. Ford, 117 Kan. 735 , 232 P. 1023 . | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Blake v. Douglass
neutral
1 sentence1936Blake v. Douglass, 27 Ind. 416; Cohee v. Baer, 134 Ind. 375 , 32 N. E. 920 ; 1 Black Judgm. sec. 196; Winer v. Mast, 146 Ind. 177 , 45 N. E. 66 ; Freem. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Cohee v. Baer
neutral
2 sentences1936Blake v. Douglass, 27 Ind. 416; Cohee v. Baer, 134 Ind. 375 , 32 N. E. 920 ; 1 Black Judgm. sec. 196; Winer v. Mast, 146 Ind. 177 , 45 N. E. 66 ; Freem. 1936Blake v. Douglass, 27 Ind. 416; Cohee v. Baer, 134 Ind. 375 , 32 N. E. 920 ; 1 Black Judgm. sec. 196; Winer v. Mast, 146 Ind. 177 , 45 N. E. 66 ; Freem. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Winer v. Mast
neutral
2 sentences1936Blake v. Douglass, 27 Ind. 416; Cohee v. Baer, 134 Ind. 375 , 32 N. E. 920 ; 1 Black Judgm. sec. 196; Winer v. Mast, 146 Ind. 177 , 45 N. E. 66 ; Freem. 1936Blake v. Douglass, 27 Ind. 416; Cohee v. Baer, 134 Ind. 375 , 32 N. E. 920 ; 1 Black Judgm. sec. 196; Winer v. Mast, 146 Ind. 177 , 45 N. E. 66 ; Freem. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Kelly v. Leachman
green
2 sentences1916It is a personal privilege which the law gives to the debtor, whereby he may say that the debt is stale, and for that reason should not be enforced.” In the case of Kelly v. Leachman, 3 Ida. 629 , 33 Pac. 44 , it was held by this court that “The statute of limitations acts upon the remedy, and not upon the debt, and the running of the statute does not extinguish the debt. 1916It is a personal privilege which the law gives to the debtor, whereby he may say that the debt is stale, and for that reason should not be enforced.” In the case of Kelly v. Leachman, 3 Ida. 629 , 33 Pac. 44 , it was held by this court that “The statute of limitations acts upon the remedy, and not upon the debt, and the running of the statute does not extinguish the debt. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Ah How v. Furth
green
2 sentences1908(Stubblefield v. McAuliff, 20 Wash. 422 , 55 Pac. 637 ; Ah How v. Furth, 13 Wash. 550 , 43 Pac. 639 .) This is also true in the absence of a statute. 1908(Stubblefield v. McAuliff, 20 Wash. 422 , 55 Pac. 637 ; Ah How v. Furth, 13 Wash. 550 , 43 Pac. 639 .) This is also true in the absence of a statute. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Stubblefield v. McAuliff
green
1 sentence1908(Stubblefield v. McAuliff, 20 Wash. 422 , 55 Pac. 637 ; Ah How v. Furth, 13 Wash. 550 , 43 Pac. 639 .) This is also true in the absence of a statute. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
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.