10 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2024 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. Hallgreen2 sentences2015In adopting its test, the Major Court began its analysis by stating, “Whether a course of criminal conduct should be divided or aggregated depends on whether or not the conduct constituted ‘separate, distinct and independent crimes.’ ” Id. (quoting from State v. Hall, 86 Idaho 63, 69 , 383 P.2d 602, 606 (1963)). 2015In adopting its test, the Major Court began its analysis by stating, “Whether a course of criminal conduct should be divided or aggregated depends on whether or not the conduct constituted ‘separate, distinct and independent crimes.’ ” Id. (quoting from State v. Hall, 86 Idaho 63, 69 , 383 P.2d 602, 606 (1963)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mooregreen2 sentences2014Defendant contends that “this evidence is extraordinarily prejudicial.” “This rule, however, does not require the exclusion of all prejudicial evidence, but only that which is unfairly prejudicial such that it tends to suggest a decision on an improper basis.” State v. Moore, 131 Idaho 814, 819 , 965 P.2d 174, 179 (1998) (emphasis added). 2014Defendant contends that “this evidence is extraordinarily prejudicial.” “This rule, however, does not require the exclusion of all prejudicial evidence, but only that which is unfairly prejudicial such that it tends to suggest a decision on an improper basis.” State v. Moore, 131 Idaho 814, 819 , 965 P.2d 174, 179 (1998) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Curr v. Curr
green
2 sentences2013The Court began its analysis by stat *469 ing, “In order to justifiably modify attorney fee agreements in the interest of public welfare, the Commission must afford due process to the contracting parties, i.e., notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time.” Id. at 692 , 864 P.2d at 138 . 2013The Court began its analysis by stat *469 ing, “In order to justifiably modify attorney fee agreements in the interest of public welfare, the Commission must afford due process to the contracting parties, i.e., notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time.” Id. at 692 , 864 P.2d at 138 . | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Bilow v. Preco, Inc.
green
1 sentence2024Id. at 31-32, 966 P.2d at 31 -32 (citing Hutchison, 130 Idaho at 942–43, 950 P.2d at 1281–82). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Hutchison v. Anderson
green
2 sentences2024The Court began its analysis by evaluating the Court of Appeals’ decision in Hutchison v. Anderson, 130 Idaho 936 , 950 P.2d 1275 (Ct.App. 1997), which held that section 45-615 provided the exclusive remedy available to a prevailing employee to recover attorney fees when the employee properly brings a claim for wages and treble damages. 2024The Court began its analysis by evaluating the Court of Appeals’ decision in Hutchison v. Anderson, 130 Idaho 936 , 950 P.2d 1275 (Ct.App. 1997), which held that section 45-615 provided the exclusive remedy available to a prevailing employee to recover attorney fees when the employee properly brings a claim for wages and treble damages. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Lehr v. Robertson
green
1 sentence2022Id. at 256–63. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Major
green
1 sentence2015In adopting its test, the Major Court began its analysis by stating, “Whether a course of criminal conduct should be divided or aggregated depends on whether or not the conduct constituted ‘separate, distinct and independent crimes.’ ” Id. (quoting from State v. Hall, 86 Idaho 63, 69 , 383 P.2d 602, 606 (1963)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Missouri v. McNeely
green
2 sentences2014McNeely , — U.S. at---, 133 S.Ct. at 1559-60 , 185 L.Ed.2d at 704-07 . 2014McNeely , — U.S. at---, 133 S.Ct. at 1559-60 , 185 L.Ed.2d at 704-07 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Arizona v. Gant
green
2 sentences2010Gant , — U.S. at --■, 129 S.Ct. at 1716 , 173 L.Ed.2d at 493 . 2010Gant , — U.S. at --■, 129 S.Ct. at 1716 , 173 L.Ed.2d at 493 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Brown v. State
green
1 sentence2010The court, relying upon Justice Sealia’s concurring opinion in Thornton , ultimately concluded: “[T]he ‘reasonable belief that evidence might be found’ prong of Gant can be satisfied solely from the inference that might be drawn from the nature of the offense of arrest itself, and the assumption that evidence might be found at the place of arrest.” Brown, 24 So.3d at 678 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Nelson v. Ponsness-Warren Idgas Enterprises
green
2 sentences2002Id. 2002Id. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Rawlings v. Layne & Bowler Pump Company
green
2 sentences1984This Court began analysis of the problem by noting that “[fjreedom of contract is a fundamental concept underlying the law of contracts and is an essential element of the free enterprise system.” Id. at 499 , 465 P.2d 107 . 1984This Court began analysis of the problem by noting that “[fjreedom of contract is a fundamental concept underlying the law of contracts and is an essential element of the free enterprise system.” Id. at 499 , 465 P.2d 107 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.