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 1959–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Griffithsgreen2 sentences2002More specifically, this Court said that "[t]he license of a driver who refuses to submit to a requested test will be reinstated if he can establish at the show cause hearing that he was not completely advised of his rights and duties under the statute." Id. at 370 , 744 P.2d at 98 (emphasis added). 2002More specifically, this Court said that "[t]he license of a driver who refuses to submit to a requested test will be reinstated if he can establish at the show cause hearing that he was not completely advised of his rights and duties under the statute." Id. at 370 , 744 P.2d at 98 (emphasis added). | 2 | 3 |
State v. LIGON-BRUNOgreen2 sentences2024See Ligon-Bruno, 152 Idaho at 278 , 270 P.3d at 1063 (holding that report of probation violation which contained “the relevant terms of the defendant’s probation, provided specific information concerning how and when those terms were allegedly violated, and requested that the [trial] court schedule a hearing” was sufficient to commence probation violation proceedings). 2024See Ligon-Bruno, 152 Idaho at 278 , 270 P.3d at 1063 (holding that report of probation violation which contained “the relevant terms of the defendant’s probation, provided specific information concerning how and when those terms were allegedly violated, and requested that the [trial] court schedule a hearing” was sufficient to commence probation violation proceedings). | 1 | 1 |
Hentges v. Hentgesgreen2 sentences1999Hentges v. Hentges, 115 Idaho 192, 194 , 765 P.2d 1094, 1096 (Ct.App.1988). 1 The hearing conducted below was a show cause hearing pursuant to I.C. § 18-8002(4), wherein Ferreira argued that his civil rights were violated by the officer’s request that Ferreira perform the field sobriety tests. 1999Hentges v. Hentges, 115 Idaho 192, 194 , 765 P.2d 1094, 1096 (Ct.App.1988). 1 The hearing conducted below was a show cause hearing pursuant to I.C. § 18-8002(4), wherein Ferreira argued that his civil rights were violated by the officer’s request that Ferreira perform the field sobriety tests. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fodgegreen2 sentences1995The remainder of the issues that Hale raises regarding the violation of his constitutional rights were not raised below, and we therefore will not consider them, State v. Fodge, 121 Idaho 192, 195 , 824 P.2d 123, 126 (1992), or are meritless and do not warrant discussion. 1995The remainder of the issues that Hale raises regarding the violation of his constitutional rights were not raised below, and we therefore will not consider them, State v. Fodge, 121 Idaho 192, 195 , 824 P.2d 123, 126 (1992), or are meritless and do not warrant discussion. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rogersgreen2 sentences1987Cf., State v. Rogers, 37 Wash. App. 728 , 683 P.2d 608, 611 (1984), review denied, 102 Wash.2d 1013 (1984). 1987Cf., State v. Rogers, 37 Wash. App. 728 , 683 P.2d 608, 611 (1984), review denied, 102 Wash.2d 1013 (1984). | 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. Baker
neutral
2 sentences2020Id. at 963 . 2020Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Rbrt Groves v. State
green
2 sentences2015I.C. § 18-8310(1). 5 offense is an aggravated offense.” Groves, 156 Idaho at 558-59 , 328 P.3d at 538-39 .5 In Groves, the defendant had been granted a hearing to determine if he had committed an aggravated offense, but was not allowed to call witnesses because he had failed to provide notice of his intent to do so. 2015I.C. § 18-8310(1). 5 offense is an aggravated offense.” Groves, 156 Idaho at 558-59 , 328 P.3d at 538-39 .5 In Groves, the defendant had been granted a hearing to determine if he had committed an aggravated offense, but was not allowed to call witnesses because he had failed to provide notice of his intent to do so. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Ausman v. State
green
2 sentences2003Rather, the state asserted that the request for a show cause hearing was governed by Misdemeanor Criminal Rule 9.2(b). 3 Hansen conceded that, in Ausman v. State, 124 Idaho 839 , 864 P.2d 1126 (1993), the Idaho Supreme Court had held that Rule 60(b)(1) was not an available remedy for an untimely request for a show cause hearing. 2003Rather, the state asserted that the request for a show cause hearing was governed by Misdemeanor Criminal Rule 9.2(b). 3 Hansen conceded that, in Ausman v. State, 124 Idaho 839 , 864 P.2d 1126 (1993), the Idaho Supreme Court had held that Rule 60(b)(1) was not an available remedy for an untimely request for a show cause hearing. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Matter of Williams
green
2 sentences1999Muthersbaugh relies on In re Williams, 120 Idaho 473 , 817 P.2d 139 (1991) in support of her contention that Neumann had adequate notice of any possible sanctions. 1999Muthersbaugh relies on In re Williams, 120 Idaho 473 , 817 P.2d 139 (1991) in support of her contention that Neumann had adequate notice of any possible sanctions. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Hellickson v. Jenkins
green
2 sentences1994Similarly, in Hellickson v. Jenkins, 118 Idaho 273 , 796 P.2d 150 (Ct.App.1990), we held that the magistrate erred in considering evidence outside the pleadings on a motion under I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) without expressly converting the motion to one for summary judgment under I.R.C.P. 56 and giving the parties a reasonable opportunity to present evidence pertinent to a summary judgment motion. 1994Similarly, in Hellickson v. Jenkins, 118 Idaho 273 , 796 P.2d 150 (Ct.App.1990), we held that the magistrate erred in considering evidence outside the pleadings on a motion under I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) without expressly converting the motion to one for summary judgment under I.R.C.P. 56 and giving the parties a reasonable opportunity to present evidence pertinent to a summary judgment motion. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Levan v. Richards
green
2 sentences1959It was not until defendants allegedly had willfully, repeatedly and flagrantly violated the restraining order that plaintiffs filed their amended and supplemental complaint October 1, 1956, directing the trial court’s attention to such violations, and suggesting that defendants be punished for contempt “in form and manner provided by law.” Defendants cite Levan v. Richards, 4 Idaho 667 , 43 P. 574 , as prohibiting an award of damages in a contempt proceeding. 1959It was not until defendants allegedly had willfully, repeatedly and flagrantly violated the restraining order that plaintiffs filed their amended and supplemental complaint October 1, 1956, directing the trial court’s attention to such violations, and suggesting that defendants be punished for contempt “in form and manner provided by law.” Defendants cite Levan v. Richards, 4 Idaho 667 , 43 P. 574 , as prohibiting an award of damages in a contempt proceeding. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
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.