11 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gristgreen2 sentences2022See Grist, 147 Idaho at 52 , 205 P.3d at 1188 (“First, the trial court must determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish the other crime or wrong as fact.”). 2022See Grist, 147 Idaho at 52 , 205 P.3d at 1188 (“First, the trial court must determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish the other crime or wrong as fact.”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Sanchezgreen2 sentences2022State v. Sanchez, 149 Idaho 102, 105 , 233 P.3d 33, 36 (2009). 2022State v. Sanchez, 149 Idaho 102, 105 , 233 P.3d 33, 36 (2009). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kaygreen2 sentences2020See Kay, 129 Idaho at 518 , 927 P.2d at 908 (explaining a declarant must show: “(1) that the statements were ‘made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment’; (2) that the statements described ‘medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the source thereof’; and (3) that the statements were ‘reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.”). “[T]he evidentiary rationale for permitting hearsay testimony regarding spontaneous declarations and statements made in the course of receiving medical care is that such out-of-court declarations are made in contexts that pro 2020See Kay, 129 Idaho at 518 , 927 P.2d at 908 (explaining a declarant must show: “(1) that the statements were ‘made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment’; (2) that the statements described ‘medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the source thereof’; and (3) that the statements were ‘reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.”). “[T]he evidentiary rationale for permitting hearsay testimony regarding spontaneous declarations and statements made in the course of receiving medical care is that such out-of-court declarations are made in contexts that pro | 1 | 1 |
White v. Illinoisgreen1 sentence2020See Kay, 129 Idaho at 518 , 927 P.2d at 908 (explaining a declarant must show: “(1) that the statements were ‘made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment’; (2) that the statements described ‘medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the source thereof’; and (3) that the statements were ‘reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.”). “[T]he evidentiary rationale for permitting hearsay testimony regarding spontaneous declarations and statements made in the course of receiving medical care is that such out-of-court declarations are made in contexts that pro | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Shoshone Countygreen2 sentences1989The first step in our analysis of this issue is to determine whether the landowners generally stated a cause of action against the flood control district for which "a private person or entity would be liable for money damages under the laws of the state of Idaho." Walker v. Shoshone County, 112 Idaho 991, 995 , 739 P.2d 290, 294 (1987). 1989The first step in our analysis of this issue is to determine whether the landowners generally stated a cause of action against the flood control district for which "a private person or entity would be liable for money damages under the laws of the state of Idaho." Walker v. Shoshone County, 112 Idaho 991, 995 , 739 P.2d 290, 294 (1987). | 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. Chambers
green
2 sentences2025Chambers, 166 Idaho at 846 , 465 P.3d at 1085 . 4 In the first step of the analysis, the trial court must determine whether the allegation is false by a preponderance of the evidence. 2025Chambers, 166 Idaho at 846 , 465 P.3d at 1085 . 4 In the first step of the analysis, the trial court must determine whether the allegation is false by a preponderance of the evidence. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Sunseri
green
2 sentences2020Id. at 14 , 437 P.3d at 14 . 2020Id. at 14 , 437 P.3d at 14 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Idaho Building Contractors Ass'n v. City of Coeur D'Alene
green
2 sentences2011In interpreting the Loomis test, Idaho Building Contractors Ass’n, 126 Idaho at 743 , 890 P.2d at 329 , provides guidance: Under the first step of the analysis, [this Court must] ... consider whether, on its face, the ... fee is a tax or a regulation. 2011In interpreting the Loomis test, Idaho Building Contractors Ass’n, 126 Idaho at 743 , 890 P.2d at 329 , provides guidance: Under the first step of the analysis, [this Court must] ... consider whether, on its face, the ... fee is a tax or a regulation. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Morrissey v. Brewer
green
2 sentences2001The first step is a hearing to determine "whether there is probable cause or reasonable ground to believe that the arrested parolee has committed acts that would constitute a violation of parole conditions." Id. at 485 , 92 S.Ct. at 2602 , 33 L.Ed.2d at 497 . 2001The first step is a hearing to determine "whether there is probable cause or reasonable ground to believe that the arrested parolee has committed acts that would constitute a violation of parole conditions." Id. at 485 , 92 S.Ct. at 2602 , 33 L.Ed.2d at 497 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Indian Towing Co. v. United States
green
2 sentences1986Id. 350 U.S. at 64-65 , 76 S.Ct. at 124 . 1986Id. 350 U.S. at 64-65 , 76 S.Ct. at 124 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.