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 1 courts 2009–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Swader v. Stategreen2 sentences2014“If the court decides that the claims in the petition are frivolous, it should provide sufficient notice regarding the basis for its ruling to enable the petitioner to provide additional facts, if they exist, to demonstrate the existence of a non-frivolous claim.” Hust v. State, 147 Idaho 682, 684 , 214 P.3d 668, 670 (Ct.App.2009) (citing Charboneau, 140 Idaho at 793 , 102 P.3d at 1112 ; Swader v. State, 143 Idaho 651, 653-54 , 152 P.3d 12, 14-15 (2007)). 2014“If the court decides that the claims in the petition are frivolous, it should provide sufficient notice regarding the basis for its ruling to enable the petitioner to provide additional facts, if they exist, to demonstrate the existence of a non-frivolous claim.” Hust v. State, 147 Idaho 682, 684 , 214 P.3d 668, 670 (Ct.App.2009) (citing Charboneau, 140 Idaho at 793 , 102 P.3d at 1112 ; Swader v. State, 143 Idaho 651, 653-54 , 152 P.3d 12, 14-15 (2007)). | 6 | 6 |
Charboneau v. Stategreen2 sentences2018The district court continued, quoting a passage from Charboneau v. State, 140 Idaho 789, 792 , 102 P.3d 1108, 1111 (2004) that cited I.C. § 19-852, which defines a non-frivolous claim as one “that a reasonable person with adequate means would be willing to bring at his own expense.” The district court concluded Fernandez’s petition for post-conviction relief was frivolous because it provided “no facts or admissible evidence in support of his claims. 2018The district court continued, quoting a passage from Charboneau v. State, 140 Idaho 789, 792 , 102 P.3d 1108, 1111 (2004) that cited I.C. § 19-852, which defines a non-frivolous claim as one “that a reasonable person with adequate means would be willing to bring at his own expense.” The district court concluded Fernandez’s petition for post-conviction relief was frivolous because it provided “no facts or admissible evidence in support of his claims. | 2 | 7 |
Hust v. Stategreen2 sentences2014“If the court decides that the claims in the petition are frivolous, it should provide sufficient notice regarding the basis for its ruling to enable the petitioner to provide additional facts, if they exist, to demonstrate the existence of a non-frivolous claim.” Hust v. State, 147 Idaho 682, 684 , 214 P.3d 668, 670 (Ct.App.2009) (citing Charboneau, 140 Idaho at 793 , 102 P.3d at 1112 ; Swader v. State, 143 Idaho 651, 653-54 , 152 P.3d 12, 14-15 (2007)). 2014“If the court decides that the claims in the petition are frivolous, it should provide sufficient notice regarding the basis for its ruling to enable the petitioner to provide additional facts, if they exist, to demonstrate the existence of a non-frivolous claim.” Hust v. State, 147 Idaho 682, 684 , 214 P.3d 668, 670 (Ct.App.2009) (citing Charboneau, 140 Idaho at 793 , 102 P.3d at 1112 ; Swader v. State, 143 Idaho 651, 653-54 , 152 P.3d 12, 14-15 (2007)). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jakoski
green
2 sentences2014Jakoski, 139 Idaho at 355 , 79 P.3d at 714 . 3 On appeal, Smith claims that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for appointment of counsel because he raised a non-frivolous claim regarding the constitutionality of Rule 34. 2014Jakoski, 139 Idaho at 355 , 79 P.3d at 714 . 3 On appeal, Smith claims that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for appointment of counsel because he raised a non-frivolous claim regarding the constitutionality of Rule 34. | 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.