11 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2023 2 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. Quinterogreen2 sentences2022State v. Quintero, 141 Idaho 619, 622 , 115 P.3d 710, 713 (2005). 3 III. 2022State v. Quintero, 141 Idaho 619, 622 , 115 P.3d 710, 713 (2005). 3 III. | 7 | 7 |
State v. Murraygreen2 sentences2008State v. Quintero, 141 Idaho 619, 622 , 115 P.3d 710, 713 (2005); State v. Murray, 143 Idaho 532, 535 , 148 P.3d 1278, 1281 (Ct.App.2006). 2008State v. Quintero, 141 Idaho 619, 622 , 115 P.3d 710, 713 (2005); State v. Murray, 143 Idaho 532, 535 , 148 P.3d 1278, 1281 (Ct.App.2006). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Binghamgreen2 sentences1993See e.g., State v. Bingham, 116 Idaho 415 , 776 P.2d 424 (1989) (sentence for lewd conduct set aside where the evidence did not disclose the sequence of events and the same set of facts resulted in separate convictions for lewd conduct and rape); State v. Smith, 121 Idaho 20 , 822 P.2d 539 (Ct.App.1991) (held: charges for inattentive driving and DUI were based upon one continuous and indivisible act of driving erratically, while under the influence of alcohol). 5 Kluss made this same argument to the district court at a post-trial hearing, relying chiefly upon State v. Randles, 115 Idaho 611 , 1993See e.g., State v. Bingham, 116 Idaho 415 , 776 P.2d 424 (1989) (sentence for lewd conduct set aside where the evidence did not disclose the sequence of events and the same set of facts resulted in separate convictions for lewd conduct and rape); State v. Smith, 121 Idaho 20 , 822 P.2d 539 (Ct.App.1991) (held: charges for inattentive driving and DUI were based upon one continuous and indivisible act of driving erratically, while under the influence of alcohol). 5 Kluss made this same argument to the district court at a post-trial hearing, relying chiefly upon State v. Randles, 115 Idaho 611 , | 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. Stewart-Meyers
green
1 sentence2023Id. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Rushen v. Spain
green
2 sentences2005Id. at 119 , 104 S.Ct. at 456 , 78 L.Ed.2d at 273 . 2005Id. at 119 , 104 S.Ct. at 456 , 78 L.Ed.2d at 273 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Randles
green
2 sentences1993See e.g., State v. Bingham, 116 Idaho 415 , 776 P.2d 424 (1989) (sentence for lewd conduct set aside where the evidence did not disclose the sequence of events and the same set of facts resulted in separate convictions for lewd conduct and rape); State v. Smith, 121 Idaho 20 , 822 P.2d 539 (Ct.App.1991) (held: charges for inattentive driving and DUI were based upon one continuous and indivisible act of driving erratically, while under the influence of alcohol). 5 Kluss made this same argument to the district court at a post-trial hearing, relying chiefly upon State v. Randles, 115 Idaho 611 , 1993See e.g., State v. Bingham, 116 Idaho 415 , 776 P.2d 424 (1989) (sentence for lewd conduct set aside where the evidence did not disclose the sequence of events and the same set of facts resulted in separate convictions for lewd conduct and rape); State v. Smith, 121 Idaho 20 , 822 P.2d 539 (Ct.App.1991) (held: charges for inattentive driving and DUI were based upon one continuous and indivisible act of driving erratically, while under the influence of alcohol). 5 Kluss made this same argument to the district court at a post-trial hearing, relying chiefly upon State v. Randles, 115 Idaho 611 , | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Randles
green
2 sentences1993See e.g., State v. Bingham, 116 Idaho 415 , 776 P.2d 424 (1989) (sentence for lewd conduct set aside where the evidence did not disclose the sequence of events and the same set of facts resulted in separate convictions for lewd conduct and rape); State v. Smith, 121 Idaho 20 , 822 P.2d 539 (Ct.App.1991) (held: charges for inattentive driving and DUI were based upon one continuous and indivisible act of driving erratically, while under the influence of alcohol). 5 Kluss made this same argument to the district court at a post-trial hearing, relying chiefly upon State v. Randles, 115 Idaho 611 , 1993See e.g., State v. Bingham, 116 Idaho 415 , 776 P.2d 424 (1989) (sentence for lewd conduct set aside where the evidence did not disclose the sequence of events and the same set of facts resulted in separate convictions for lewd conduct and rape); State v. Smith, 121 Idaho 20 , 822 P.2d 539 (Ct.App.1991) (held: charges for inattentive driving and DUI were based upon one continuous and indivisible act of driving erratically, while under the influence of alcohol). 5 Kluss made this same argument to the district court at a post-trial hearing, relying chiefly upon State v. Randles, 115 Idaho 611 , | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences1993See e.g., State v. Bingham, 116 Idaho 415 , 776 P.2d 424 (1989) (sentence for lewd conduct set aside where the evidence did not disclose the sequence of events and the same set of facts resulted in separate convictions for lewd conduct and rape); State v. Smith, 121 Idaho 20 , 822 P.2d 539 (Ct.App.1991) (held: charges for inattentive driving and DUI were based upon one continuous and indivisible act of driving erratically, while under the influence of alcohol). 5 Kluss made this same argument to the district court at a post-trial hearing, relying chiefly upon State v. Randles, 115 Idaho 611 , 1993See e.g., State v. Bingham, 116 Idaho 415 , 776 P.2d 424 (1989) (sentence for lewd conduct set aside where the evidence did not disclose the sequence of events and the same set of facts resulted in separate convictions for lewd conduct and rape); State v. Smith, 121 Idaho 20 , 822 P.2d 539 (Ct.App.1991) (held: charges for inattentive driving and DUI were based upon one continuous and indivisible act of driving erratically, while under the influence of alcohol). 5 Kluss made this same argument to the district court at a post-trial hearing, relying chiefly upon State v. Randles, 115 Idaho 611 , | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Hopkins v. Hartman
green
2 sentences1989Flying directly into the teeth of Mr. Camp's letter, but thinking he had approval when he did not, he retained Mr. Reynolds to find him a buyer. [2] The district judge at a post-trial hearing held one month after issuing his written decision commented: THE COURT: I might add, Mr. Finney, there is one point of the whole case that I think perhaps that you and I could agree on, and that is, it is too bad Panhandle Health can't really be held accountable in this, because in my view their wishy-washiness in lack of clarity of language and speaking in their bureaucratic language which nobody underst 1989App.3d 260 , 56 Ill.Dec. 791 , 427 N.E.2d 1337 (1981). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.