10 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dachlet v. Stategreen2 sentences2016The Court ruled in Haynes that “‘showing that the test was administered in conformity with applicable test procedures or expert testimony may suffice to establish an adequate foundation.’ Therefore, the fact that the 2013 SOPs were void would not have prevented the State from establishing an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the test results.” Haynes, 159 Idaho at 45 , 355 P.3d at 1275 (quoting Dachlet v. State, 136 Idaho 752, 757 , 40 P.3d 110, 115 (2002)). 2016The Court ruled in Haynes that “‘showing that the test was administered in conformity with applicable test procedures or expert testimony may suffice to establish an adequate foundation.’ Therefore, the fact that the 2013 SOPs were void would not have prevented the State from establishing an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the test results.” Haynes, 159 Idaho at 45 , 355 P.3d at 1275 (quoting Dachlet v. State, 136 Idaho 752, 757 , 40 P.3d 110, 115 (2002)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Manzanaresgreen2 sentences2015State v. Manzanares, 152 Idaho 410, 420 , 272 P.3d 382, 392 (2012). 2015State v. Manzanares, 152 Idaho 410, 420 , 272 P.3d 382, 392 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
Kirk v. Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences2015“When presented with a motion in limine, a trial court has the authority to deny the motion and wait until trial to determine if the evidence should or should not be excluded.” Kirk v. Ford Motor Co., 141 Idaho 697, 701 , 116 P.3d 27, 31 (2005). 2015“When presented with a motion in limine, a trial court has the authority to deny the motion and wait until trial to determine if the evidence should or should not be excluded.” Kirk v. Ford Motor Co., 141 Idaho 697, 701 , 116 P.3d 27, 31 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wrenngreen2 sentences2011In setting forth the new admissibility standard, Grist offered some guidance, stating: “The prejudicial effect of [character evidence] is that it induces the jury to believe the accused is more likely to have committed the crime on trial because he is a man of criminal character.” State v. Wrenn, 99 Idaho 506, 510 , 584 P.2d 1231, 1235 (1978). 2011In setting forth the new admissibility standard, Grist offered some guidance, stating: “The prejudicial effect of [character evidence] is that it induces the jury to believe the accused is more likely to have committed the crime on trial because he is a man of criminal character.” State v. Wrenn, 99 Idaho 506, 510 , 584 P.2d 1231, 1235 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Oats v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A.green2 sentences1997Oats v. Nissan Motor Corp. in the U.S.A., 126 Idaho 162, 166 , 879 P.2d 1095, 1099 (1994) (analyzing affidavit submitted in opposition to summary judgment motion, finding it flawed under Rule 56(e), and affirming district court’s grant of summary judgment). 1997Oats v. Nissan Motor Corp. in the U.S.A., 126 Idaho 162, 166 , 879 P.2d 1095, 1099 (1994) (analyzing affidavit submitted in opposition to summary judgment motion, finding it flawed under Rule 56(e), and affirming district court’s grant of summary judgment). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Murphygreen2 sentences1992See, e.g., State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 156 (Iowa 1990); Kelly v. State, 792 S.W.2d 579, 584-85 (Tex.App.1990). 1992See, e.g., State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 156 (Iowa 1990); Kelly v. State, 792 S.W.2d 579, 584-85 (Tex.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Kelly v. Stategreen2 sentences1992See, e.g., State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 156 (Iowa 1990); Kelly v. State, 792 S.W.2d 579, 584-85 (Tex.App.1990). 1992See, e.g., State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 156 (Iowa 1990); Kelly v. State, 792 S.W.2d 579, 584-85 (Tex.App.1990). | 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. Felicity Kathleen Haynes
green
2 sentences2016The Court ruled, “Therefore, the fact that the 2013 SOPs are void would not have prevented the State from establishing an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the test results.” Id. 2016The Court ruled in Haynes that “‘showing that the test was administered in conformity with applicable test procedures or expert testimony may suffice to establish an adequate foundation.’ Therefore, the fact that the 2013 SOPs were void would not have prevented the State from establishing an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the test results.” Haynes, 159 Idaho at 45 , 355 P.3d at 1275 (quoting Dachlet v. State, 136 Idaho 752, 757 , 40 P.3d 110, 115 (2002)). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Wilbert Longhofer
green
2 sentences2022Although the issue in Longhofer was the admissibility of test results from an unverified testing device, Longhofer, 162 Idaho at 527 , 399 P.3d at 854 , no principled reason requires a different rule for admitting test results obtained by an officer whose certification had recently lapsed-- particularly when the officer is as experienced using the testing device during DUI investigations as Officer Christ is. 2022Although the issue in Longhofer was the admissibility of test results from an unverified testing device, Longhofer, 162 Idaho at 527 , 399 P.3d at 854 , no principled reason requires a different rule for admitting test results obtained by an officer whose certification had recently lapsed-- particularly when the officer is as experienced using the testing device during DUI investigations as Officer Christ is. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Bell
green
2 sentences2013With respect to the ISP’s responsibility to adopt standards that will ensure test accuracy, Besaw refers to this Court’s comments in State v. Bell, 115 Idaho 36 , 764 P.2d 113 (Ct.App.1988), discussing a prior version of I.C. § 18-8004 in which responsibility for authorizing alcohol content testing procedures was assigned to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, a responsibility that has subsequently transferred to the ISP. 2013With respect to the ISP’s responsibility to adopt standards that will ensure test accuracy, Besaw refers to this Court’s comments in State v. Bell, 115 Idaho 36 , 764 P.2d 113 (Ct.App.1988), discussing a prior version of I.C. § 18-8004 in which responsibility for authorizing alcohol content testing procedures was assigned to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, a responsibility that has subsequently transferred to the ISP. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Nickerson
green
2 sentences2010Nickerson, 132 Idaho at 410 , 973 P.2d at 762 . 2010Nickerson, 132 Idaho at 410 , 973 P.2d at 762 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Pressnall
green
2 sentences1996Id. at 211 , 804 P.2d at 940 . 1996Id. at 211 , 804 P.2d at 940 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.