10 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2025 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hausladen v. Sahlingreen2 sentences2023In asserting this challenge, however, Mother fails to cite to anything in the record supporting her assertion that the expert failed to review this information.6 See Idaho Appellate Rule 35(a)(6) (requiring appellant to cite record relied upon); Hausladen v. Knoche, 159 Idaho 358, 363 , 360 P.3d 367, 372 (Ct. App. 2015) (declining to consider argument not supported by record citation). 2023In asserting this challenge, however, Mother fails to cite to anything in the record supporting her assertion that the expert failed to review this information.6 See Idaho Appellate Rule 35(a)(6) (requiring appellant to cite record relied upon); Hausladen v. Knoche, 159 Idaho 358, 363 , 360 P.3d 367, 372 (Ct. App. 2015) (declining to consider argument not supported by record citation). | 2 | 2 |
Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe (In Re Interest of Doe)green2 sentences2022See Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 150 Idaho 103, 113 , 244 P.3d 247, 257 (Ct. App. 2010) (noting appellate court will not search record for error); Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Jane Doe (2018-24), 164 Idaho 143 , 147, 426 P.3d 1243, 1247 (2018) (noting appellate court does not address issues not supported by cogent argument and citation to legal authority). 2021See Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe (2018-24), 164 Idaho 143 , 147, 426 P.3d 1243, 1247 (2018) (ruling appellate court will not consider issue not supported by cogent argument and legal authority even in appeal from termination of parental rights). | 2 | 2 |
In Interest of Baby Doegreen2 sentences2024See In the Int. of Baby Doe, 130 Idaho 47, 54 , 936 P.2d 690, 697 (Ct. App. 1997) (holding father’s failure to fulfill obligations to child, maintain stable lifestyle, employment, and home, along with disregard for physical, emotional, and educational needs of child justified finding neglect).3 Regarding Mother’s claim of being denied visitation with Child, the magistrate court stated, “Although Mother was denied visitation in 2023, she did not even seek visitation between August 2020 and February 2022.” Further the magistrate court found: Mother clearly knew how to contact her parents and, th 2024See In the Int. of Baby Doe, 130 Idaho 47, 54 , 936 P.2d 690, 697 (Ct. App. 1997) (holding father’s failure to fulfill obligations to child, maintain stable lifestyle, employment, and home, along with disregard for physical, emotional, and educational needs of child justified finding neglect).3 Regarding Mother’s claim of being denied visitation with Child, the magistrate court stated, “Although Mother was denied visitation in 2023, she did not even seek visitation between August 2020 and February 2022.” Further the magistrate court found: Mother clearly knew how to contact her parents and, th | 1 | 1 |
Idaho Department of Health & Welfare v. Doegreen2 sentences2022See Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 150 Idaho 103, 113 , 244 P.3d 247, 257 (Ct. App. 2010) (noting appellate court will not search record for error); Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Jane Doe (2018-24), 164 Idaho 143 , 147, 426 P.3d 1243, 1247 (2018) (noting appellate court does not address issues not supported by cogent argument and citation to legal authority). 2022See Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 150 Idaho 103, 113 , 244 P.3d 247, 257 (Ct. App. 2010) (noting appellate court will not search record for error); Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Jane Doe (2018-24), 164 Idaho 143 , 147, 426 P.3d 1243, 1247 (2018) (noting appellate court does not address issues not supported by cogent argument and citation to legal authority). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Termination of the Parental Rights of Doe 2009-19green2 sentences2022See Neustadt, 167 Idaho at 227 , 469 P.3d at 14 (“[A]ppellate courts in Idaho do not reweigh evidence.”); In re Doe 2009-19, 150 Idaho at 209 , 245 P.3d at 961 (“It is not our role to reweigh the evidence.”). 2022See Neustadt, 167 Idaho at 227 , 469 P.3d at 14 (“[A]ppellate courts in Idaho do not reweigh evidence.”); In re Doe 2009-19, 150 Idaho at 209 , 245 P.3d at 961 (“It is not our role to reweigh the evidence.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jeskegreen2 sentences2022See State v. Jeske, 164 Idaho 862, 870 , 436 P.3d 683, 691 (2019) (requiring parties to argue abuse of discretion). 3. 2022See State v. Jeske, 164 Idaho 862, 870 , 436 P.3d 683, 691 (2019) (requiring parties to argue abuse of discretion). 3. | 1 | 1 |
Neustadt v. Colafranceschigreen2 sentences2022See Neustadt, 167 Idaho at 227 , 469 P.3d at 14 (“[A]ppellate courts in Idaho do not reweigh evidence.”); In re Doe 2009-19, 150 Idaho at 209 , 245 P.3d at 961 (“It is not our role to reweigh the evidence.”). 2022See Neustadt, 167 Idaho at 227 , 469 P.3d at 14 (“[A]ppellate courts in Idaho do not reweigh evidence.”); In re Doe 2009-19, 150 Idaho at 209 , 245 P.3d at 961 (“It is not our role to reweigh the evidence.”). | 1 | 1 |
Ameritel Inns, Inc. v. Greater Boise Auditorium Districtgreen2 sentences2014This Court has recognized three exceptions to the mootness doctrine: “(1) when there is the possibility of collateral legal consequences imposed on the person raising the issue; (2) when the challenged conduct is likely to evade judicial review and thus is capable of repetition; and (3) when an otherwise moot issue raises concerns of substantial public interest.” Ameritel Inns, Inc. v. Greater Boise Auditorium Dist., 141 Idaho 849, 851-52 , 119 P.3d 624, 626-27 (2005). 2014This Court has recognized three exceptions to the mootness doctrine: “(1) when there is the possibility of collateral legal consequences imposed on the person raising the issue; (2) when the challenged conduct is likely to evade judicial review and thus is capable of repetition; and (3) when an otherwise moot issue raises concerns of substantial public interest.” Ameritel Inns, Inc. v. Greater Boise Auditorium Dist., 141 Idaho 849, 851-52 , 119 P.3d 624, 626-27 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Manleygreen2 sentences2014See State v. Manley, 142 Idaho 338, 343-44 , 127 P.3d 954, 959-60 (2005). 2014See State v. Manley, 142 Idaho 338, 343-44 , 127 P.3d 954, 959-60 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
1 sentence2025Demetri raises two challenges on appeal, alleging the district court erred in: (1) denying his motions to suppress and for a Franks1 hearing; and (2) admitting statements from the decedent’s mother in violation of the Confrontation Clause and Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Matter of Petition of Steve B.D. v. Steve B.D.
green
2 sentences2020In denying Mother’s motion to set aside the form she executed, Judge Krogh referred to this form as “consent to termination of [Mother’s] parental rights.” Judge Krogh cited Petition of Steve B.D., 111 Idaho 285 , 723 P.2d 829 (1986), for the rule that a form consenting to termination of parental rights cannot be withdrawn without a showing of fraud, duress, or undue influence. 2020In denying Mother’s motion to set aside the form she executed, Judge Krogh referred to this form as “consent to termination of [Mother’s] parental rights.” Judge Krogh cited Petition of Steve B.D., 111 Idaho 285 , 723 P.2d 829 (1986), for the rule that a form consenting to termination of parental rights cannot be withdrawn without a showing of fraud, duress, or undue influence. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Berg v. Kendall
green
2 sentences2018Berg v. Kendall , 147 Idaho 571 , 576, 212 P.3d 1001 , 1006 (2009). "[W]here nondiscretionary grounds are asserted, the question presented is one of law, upon which the Court exercises free review." Id. 2018Berg v. Kendall , 147 Idaho 571 , 576, 212 P.3d 1001 , 1006 (2009). "[W]here nondiscretionary grounds are asserted, the question presented is one of law, upon which the Court exercises free review." Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Heiss v. Conti
green
1 sentence2014They cite In re Doe, 148 Idaho 432 , 224 P.3d 499 (2009), in support of this argument and contend that termination of the guardianship would require proving that Guardians were unfit or unqualified. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re Doe
green
1 sentence2014They cite In re Doe, 148 Idaho 432 , 224 P.3d 499 (2009), in support of this argument and contend that termination of the guardianship would require proving that Guardians were unfit or unqualified. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.