Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2019 0 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. William Franklin Wolfegreen2 sentences2018This is because “where a district court fails to rule on a motion, we presume the district court denied the motion.” State v. Wolfe, 158 7 Idaho 55, 61 , 343 P.3d 497, 503 (2015). 2017This is because “where a district court fails to rule on a motion, we presume the district court denied the motion.” State v. Wolfe, 158 Idaho 55, 61 , 343 P.3d 497, 503 (2015). | 5 | 7 |
Norman v. Apache Corp.green1 sentence2015See, e.g., Sales v. Peabody, 157 Idaho 195, 202 , 335 P.3d 40, 47 (2014); see also United States v. Claxton, 766 F.3d 280, 291 (3d Cir.2014) (noting that several federal *62 circuit courts of appeals treat a district court’s failure to rule on an outstanding motion as an implicit denial of that motion); United States v. Jasso, 634 F.3d 305 , 307 n. 2 (5th Cir.2011) (treating a district court’s failure to rule on a motion for reconsideration as an implicit denial based on the entry of a final judgment); Norman v. Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1021 (5th Cir.1994) (“The denial of a motion by the di | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Craig Claxtongreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., Sales v. Peabody, 157 Idaho 195, 202 , 335 P.3d 40, 47 (2014); see also United States v. Claxton, 766 F.3d 280, 291 (3d Cir.2014) (noting that several federal *62 circuit courts of appeals treat a district court’s failure to rule on an outstanding motion as an implicit denial of that motion); United States v. Jasso, 634 F.3d 305 , 307 n. 2 (5th Cir.2011) (treating a district court’s failure to rule on a motion for reconsideration as an implicit denial based on the entry of a final judgment); Norman v. Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1021 (5th Cir.1994) (“The denial of a motion by the di | 1 | 1 |
Sales v. Peabodygreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Sales v. Peabody, 157 Idaho 195, 202 , 335 P.3d 40, 47 (2014); see also United States v. Claxton, 766 F.3d 280, 291 (3d Cir.2014) (noting that several federal *62 circuit courts of appeals treat a district court’s failure to rule on an outstanding motion as an implicit denial of that motion); United States v. Jasso, 634 F.3d 305 , 307 n. 2 (5th Cir.2011) (treating a district court’s failure to rule on a motion for reconsideration as an implicit denial based on the entry of a final judgment); Norman v. Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1021 (5th Cir.1994) (“The denial of a motion by the di 2015See, e.g., Sales v. Peabody, 157 Idaho 195, 202 , 335 P.3d 40, 47 (2014); see also United States v. Claxton, 766 F.3d 280, 291 (3d Cir.2014) (noting that several federal *62 circuit courts of appeals treat a district court’s failure to rule on an outstanding motion as an implicit denial of that motion); United States v. Jasso, 634 F.3d 305 , 307 n. 2 (5th Cir.2011) (treating a district court’s failure to rule on a motion for reconsideration as an implicit denial based on the entry of a final judgment); Norman v. Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1021 (5th Cir.1994) (“The denial of a motion by the di | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Jasso
green
1 sentence2015See, e.g., Sales v. Peabody, 157 Idaho 195, 202 , 335 P.3d 40, 47 (2014); see also United States v. Claxton, 766 F.3d 280, 291 (3d Cir.2014) (noting that several federal *62 circuit courts of appeals treat a district court’s failure to rule on an outstanding motion as an implicit denial of that motion); United States v. Jasso, 634 F.3d 305 , 307 n. 2 (5th Cir.2011) (treating a district court’s failure to rule on a motion for reconsideration as an implicit denial based on the entry of a final judgment); Norman v. Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1021 (5th Cir.1994) (“The denial of a motion by the di | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.