10 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
John and Jane Doe I v. Jane Doegreen2 sentences2024In Matter of Doe, 164 Idaho 511 , 432 P.3d 60 (2018) the Court stated: The best interests analysis is an expansive analysis with “no set list of factors a court must consider.” In re Doe (2015-03), 159 Idaho 192 , [198], 358 P.3d 77, 83 (2015). 2024In Matter of Doe, 164 Idaho 511 , 432 P.3d 60 (2018) the Court stated: The best interests analysis is an expansive analysis with “no set list of factors a court must consider.” In re Doe (2015-03), 159 Idaho 192 , [198], 358 P.3d 77, 83 (2015). | 6 | 7 |
Re: Thermination of Parental Rights (mother)green2 sentences2024Matter of Doe, 164 Idaho 511, 516 , 432 P.3d 60, 65 (2018); see In re Doe, 156 Idaho 103, 111 , 320 P.3d 1262, 1270 (2014) (providing non-exhaustive list of factors a court may consider under the I.C. § 16-2005 best interests analysis). 2024Matter of Doe, 164 Idaho 511, 516 , 432 P.3d 60, 65 (2018); see In re Doe, 156 Idaho 103, 111 , 320 P.3d 1262, 1270 (2014) (providing non-exhaustive list of factors a court may consider under the I.C. § 16-2005 best interests analysis). | 3 | 3 |
Jane Doe (2015-03) v. John Doegreen2 sentences2024In Matter of Doe, 164 Idaho 511 , 432 P.3d 60 (2018) the Court stated: The best interests analysis is an expansive analysis with “no set list of factors a court must consider.” In re Doe (2015-03), 159 Idaho 192 , [198], 358 P.3d 77, 83 (2015). 2024In Matter of Doe, 164 Idaho 511 , 432 P.3d 60 (2018) the Court stated: The best interests analysis is an expansive analysis with “no set list of factors a court must consider.” In re Doe (2015-03), 159 Idaho 192 , [198], 358 P.3d 77, 83 (2015). | 2 | 3 |
Ellis v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2014See [United States v. Mandanici, 205 F.3d 519, 528 (2nd Cir.2000) ] (explaining that a watershed rule must institute “a ‘sweeping’ change that applies to a large swathe [sic] of cases rather than a ‘narrow right’ that applies only to a ‘limited class’ of eases”) (quoting [O’Dell v. Netherlands 521 U.S. 151, 167 , 117 S.Ct. 1969, 1978 , 138 L.Ed.2d 351, 364-65 (1997) ]); see also Ellis v. United States, 806 F.Supp.2d 538, 549 (E.D.N.Y.2011) (concluding that the rule announced in Padilla was not a watershed rule because “the rule has nothing to do with the accuracy of a defendant’s conviction,” | 1 | 1 |
O'Dell v. Netherlandgreen2 sentences2014See [United States v. Mandanici, 205 F.3d 519, 528 (2nd Cir.2000) ] (explaining that a watershed rule must institute “a ‘sweeping’ change that applies to a large swathe [sic] of cases rather than a ‘narrow right’ that applies only to a ‘limited class’ of eases”) (quoting [O’Dell v. Netherlands 521 U.S. 151, 167 , 117 S.Ct. 1969, 1978 , 138 L.Ed.2d 351, 364-65 (1997) ]); see also Ellis v. United States, 806 F.Supp.2d 538, 549 (E.D.N.Y.2011) (concluding that the rule announced in Padilla was not a watershed rule because “the rule has nothing to do with the accuracy of a defendant’s conviction,” 2014See [United States v. Mandanici, 205 F.3d 519, 528 (2nd Cir.2000) ] (explaining that a watershed rule must institute “a ‘sweeping’ change that applies to a large swathe [sic] of cases rather than a ‘narrow right’ that applies only to a ‘limited class’ of eases”) (quoting [O’Dell v. Netherlands 521 U.S. 151, 167 , 117 S.Ct. 1969, 1978 , 138 L.Ed.2d 351, 364-65 (1997) ]); see also Ellis v. United States, 806 F.Supp.2d 538, 549 (E.D.N.Y.2011) (concluding that the rule announced in Padilla was not a watershed rule because “the rule has nothing to do with the accuracy of a defendant’s conviction,” | 1 | 1 |
United States v. John C. Mandanici, Jr.green1 sentence2014See [United States v. Mandanici, 205 F.3d 519, 528 (2nd Cir.2000) ] (explaining that a watershed rule must institute “a ‘sweeping’ change that applies to a large swathe [sic] of cases rather than a ‘narrow right’ that applies only to a ‘limited class’ of eases”) (quoting [O’Dell v. Netherlands 521 U.S. 151, 167 , 117 S.Ct. 1969, 1978 , 138 L.Ed.2d 351, 364-65 (1997) ]); see also Ellis v. United States, 806 F.Supp.2d 538, 549 (E.D.N.Y.2011) (concluding that the rule announced in Padilla was not a watershed rule because “the rule has nothing to do with the accuracy of a defendant’s conviction,” | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.