57 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2026 10 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 |
|---|---|---|
Baxter v. Craneygreen2 sentences2016Baxter v. Craney, 135 Idaho 166, 170 , 16 P.3d 263, 267 (2000). 2016Baxter v. Craney, 135 Idaho 166, 170 , 16 P.3d 263, 267 (2000). | 8 | 8 |
Berglund v. Dixgreen2 sentences2025Berglund v. Dix, 170 Idaho 378, 384 , 511 P.3d 260, 266 (2022). 2025Berglund v. Dix, 170 Idaho 378, 384 , 511 P.3d 260, 266 (2022). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Clarkegreen2 sentences2025State v. Lancaster, 171 Idaho 236 , 240, 519 P.3d 1176, 1180 (2022) (citing State v. Clarke, 165 Idaho 393, 396 , 446 P.3d 451, 454 (2019)). 2025State v. Lancaster, 171 Idaho 236 , 240, 519 P.3d 1176, 1180 (2022) (citing State v. Clarke, 165 Idaho 393, 396 , 446 P.3d 451, 454 (2019)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Lancastergreen2 sentences2025State v. Lancaster, 171 Idaho 236 , 240, 519 P.3d 1176, 1180 (2022) (citing State v. Clarke, 165 Idaho 393, 396 , 446 P.3d 451, 454 (2019)). 2025State v. Lancaster, 171 Idaho 236 , 240, 519 P.3d 1176, 1180 (2022) (citing State v. Clarke, 165 Idaho 393, 396 , 446 P.3d 451, 454 (2019)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Atkinsongreen2 sentences2024State v. Atkinson, 124 Idaho 816, 819 , 864 P.2d 654, 657 (Ct. App. 1993). 2024State v. Atkinson, 124 Idaho 816, 819 , 864 P.2d 654, 657 (Ct. App. 1993). | 2 | 2 |
Brady v. City of Homedalegreen2 sentences2017Brady v. City of Homedale, 130 Idaho 569, 571 , 944 P.2d 704, 706 (1997). 2017Brady v. City of Homedale, 130 Idaho 569, 571 , 944 P.2d 704, 706 (1997). | 2 | 2 |
State v. David Loren Currygreen2 sentences2013State v. Hoyle, 140 Idaho 679, 684 , 99 P.3d 1069, 1074 (2004); State v. Curry, 153 Idaho 394, 396 , 283 P.3d 141, 143 (Ct. App. 2012); State v. Lawyer, 150 Idaho 170, 172 , 244 P.3d 1256, 1258 (Ct. App. 2010). 2013State v. Hoyle, 140 Idaho 679, 684 , 99 P.3d 1069, 1074 (2004); State v. Curry, 153 Idaho 394, 396 , 283 P.3d 141, 143 (Ct. App. 2012); State v. Lawyer, 150 Idaho 170, 172 , 244 P.3d 1256, 1258 (Ct. App. 2010). | 2 | 2 |
Tolley v. Thi Co.green2 sentences2006Tolley v. THI Co., 140 Idaho 253, 259 , 92 P.3d 503, 509 (2004). 2006Tolley v. THI Co., 140 Idaho 253, 259 , 92 P.3d 503, 509 (2004). | 2 | 2 |
Sun Valley Potatoes, Inc. v. Rosholt, Robertson & Tuckergreen2 sentences2005Sun Valley v. Rosholt, Robertson & Tucker, 133 Idaho 1, 3 , 981 P.2d 236, 238 (1999). 2005Sun Valley v. Rosholt, Robertson & Tucker, 133 Idaho 1, 3 , 981 P.2d 236, 238 (1999). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Perrygreen2 sentences2018If the alleged error was followed by a contemporaneous objection at trial, appellate courts employ the harmless error test articulated in Chapman v. California , which provides "[w]here the defendant meets his initial burden of showing that a violation occurred, the State then has the burden of demonstrating to the appellate court beyond a reasonable doubt that the constitutional violation did not contribute to the jury's verdict." State v. Perry , 150 Idaho 209 , 227, 245 P.3d 961 , 979 (2010) (citing Chapman v. California , 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) ). 2018If the alleged error was followed by a contemporaneous objection at trial, appellate courts employ the harmless error test articulated in Chapman v. California , which provides "[w]here the defendant meets his initial burden of showing that a violation occurred, the State then has the burden of demonstrating to the appellate court beyond a reasonable doubt that the constitutional violation did not contribute to the jury's verdict." State v. Perry , 150 Idaho 209 , 227, 245 P.3d 961 , 979 (2010) (citing Chapman v. California , 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) ). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Hoylegreen2 sentences2013State v. Hoyle, 140 Idaho 679, 684 , 99 P.3d 1069, 1074 (2004); State v. Curry, 153 Idaho 394, 396 , 283 P.3d 141, 143 (Ct. App. 2012); State v. Lawyer, 150 Idaho 170, 172 , 244 P.3d 1256, 1258 (Ct. App. 2010). 2013STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence for a judgment of conviction entered upon a jury verdict is whether there was substantial evidence upon which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the prosecution sustained its burden of proving the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. ,S/d/s v. Hoyle, 140 Idaho 679,684 ,99P.3d 1069,1074(2004);Statev. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Fieldsgreen2 sentences2025State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 912-13 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1219-20 (1995). 2025State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 912-13 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1219-20 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
Verdene Page v. McCain Foods, Inc.green2 sentences2022It is useful in guiding treatment, determining prognosis, and ascertaining the risks for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). 3 Commission’s factual findings so long as they are supported by substantial and competent evidence.” Page v. McCain Foods, Inc., 155 Idaho 755, 760 , 316 P.3d 671, 676 (2014). 2022It is useful in guiding treatment, determining prognosis, and ascertaining the risks for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). 3 Commission’s factual findings so long as they are supported by substantial and competent evidence.” Page v. McCain Foods, Inc., 155 Idaho 755, 760 , 316 P.3d 671, 676 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
Losser v. Bradstreetgreen2 sentences2019See Losser v. Bradstreet, 145 Idaho 670, 672, 183 P.3d 758, 760 (2008). 2019See Losser v. Bradstreet, 145 Idaho 670, 672, 183 P.3d 758, 760 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lawyergreen2 sentences2013State v. Hoyle, 140 Idaho 679, 684 , 99 P.3d 1069, 1074 (2004); State v. Curry, 153 Idaho 394, 396 , 283 P.3d 141, 143 (Ct. App. 2012); State v. Lawyer, 150 Idaho 170, 172 , 244 P.3d 1256, 1258 (Ct. App. 2010). 2013State v. Hoyle, 140 Idaho 679, 684 , 99 P.3d 1069, 1074 (2004); State v. Curry, 153 Idaho 394, 396 , 283 P.3d 141, 143 (Ct. App. 2012); State v. Lawyer, 150 Idaho 170, 172 , 244 P.3d 1256, 1258 (Ct. App. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cardenasgreen2 sentences2013State v. Cardenas, 143 Idaho 903, 906 , 155 P.3d 704, 707 (Ct. App 2006). 2013State v. Cardenas, 143 Idaho 903, 906 , 155 P.3d 704, 707 (Ct. App 2006). | 1 | 1 |
Sun Valley Shopping Center, Inc. v. Idaho Power Co.green2 sentences2010Sun Valley Shopping Ctr. v. Idaho Power Co., 119 Idaho 87, 94 , 803 P.2d 993, 1000 (1991). 2010Sun Valley Shopping Ctr. v. Idaho Power Co., 119 Idaho 87, 94 , 803 P.2d 993, 1000 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
Rim View Trout Co. v. Idaho Department of Water Resourcesgreen2 sentences2008Rim View Trout Co. v. Idaho Dep’t of Water Res., 119 Idaho 676, 677 , 809 P.2d 1155, 1156 (1991). 2008Rim View Trout Co. v. Idaho Dep’t of Water Res., 119 Idaho 676, 677 , 809 P.2d 1155, 1156 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
Riley v. WR HOLDINGS, LLCgreen2 sentences2008Holdings, LLC, 143 Idaho 116, 119 , 138 P.3d 316, 319 (2006). 2008Holdings, LLC, 143 Idaho 116, 119 , 138 P.3d 316, 319 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
American & Foreign Ins. Co. v. Reichertgreen2 sentences2006American Foreign Insurance Co. v. Reichert, 140 Idaho 394, 398 , 94 P.3d 699, 703 (2004). 2006American Foreign Insurance Co. v. Reichert, 140 Idaho 394, 398 , 94 P.3d 699, 703 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
Electrical Wholesale Supply Co. v. Nielsongreen2 sentences2006Electrical Wholesale Supply Co., Inc. v. Nielson, 136 Idaho 814, 825 , 41 P.3d 242, 253 (2001). 2006Electrical Wholesale Supply Co., Inc. v. Nielson, 136 Idaho 814, 825 , 41 P.3d 242, 253 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
Woodburn v. Manco Products, Inc.green2 sentences2005“The determination of the meaning of a statute and its application is a matter of law over which this Court exercises free review.” Woo dburn v. Manco, 137 Idaho 502, 504 , 50 P.3d 997, 999 (2002). 2005“The determination of the meaning of a statute and its application is a matter of law over which this Court exercises free review.” Woo dburn v. Manco, 137 Idaho 502, 504 , 50 P.3d 997, 999 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. Sullivangreen2 sentences2004Baker v. Sullivan, 132 Idaho 746, 748 , 979 P.2d 619, 621 (1999). 2004Baker v. Sullivan, 132 Idaho 746, 748 , 979 P.2d 619, 621 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
| Belk v. Martingreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Williamsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mooregreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lanham v. Idaho Power Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Slatergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Highland Enterprises, Inc. v. Barkergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Filsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ojedagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Comer v. County of Twin Fallsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Milbert v. Carl Carbon, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Webergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Heinengreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Carrascogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Vernon v. Omark Industriesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Blackwell v. Omark Industriesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tomchak v. Walkergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sato v. Schossbergergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Davaz v. Priest River Glass Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2018However, this Court exercises free review over the Commission's conclusions of law." Davaz v. Priest River Glass Co ., 125 Idaho 333 , 335-36, 870 P.2d 1292 , 1294-95 (1994) (quotations and citations omitted). 2018However, this Court exercises free review over the Commission's conclusions of law." Davaz v. Priest River Glass Co ., 125 Idaho 333 , 335-36, 870 P.2d 1292 , 1294-95 (1994) (quotations and citations omitted). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences2018If the alleged error was followed by a contemporaneous objection at trial, appellate courts employ the harmless error test articulated in Chapman v. California , which provides "[w]here the defendant meets his initial burden of showing that a violation occurred, the State then has the burden of demonstrating to the appellate court beyond a reasonable doubt that the constitutional violation did not contribute to the jury's verdict." State v. Perry , 150 Idaho 209 , 227, 245 P.3d 961 , 979 (2010) (citing Chapman v. California , 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) ). 2018If the alleged error was followed by a contemporaneous objection at trial, appellate courts employ the harmless error test articulated in Chapman v. California , which provides "[w]here the defendant meets his initial burden of showing that a violation occurred, the State then has the burden of demonstrating to the appellate court beyond a reasonable doubt that the constitutional violation did not contribute to the jury's verdict." State v. Perry , 150 Idaho 209 , 227, 245 P.3d 961 , 979 (2010) (citing Chapman v. California , 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) ). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Nicholls v. Blaser
green
2 sentences2002STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review when this Court is reviewing an order of the district court acting in its appellate capacity was set forth in Nicholls v. Blaser, 102 Idaho 559 , 633 P.2d 1137 (1981). 2002STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review when this Court is reviewing an order of the district court acting in its appellate capacity was set forth in Nicholls v. Blaser, 102 Idaho 559 , 633 P.2d 1137 (1981). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Miramontes
green
2 sentences2026State v. Miramontes, 170 Idaho 920, 924-25 , 517 P.3d 849 , 853- 54 (2022). 2026State v. Miramontes, 170 Idaho 920, 924-25 , 517 P.3d 849 , 853- 54 (2022). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence2026When a decision on a motion to suppress is challenged, we accept the trial court’s findings of fact that are supported by substantial evidence, but we freely review the application of constitutional principles to the facts 1 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1996). 2 In his motion to suppress, Clarke also argued that his Miranda rights had been violated. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Terry v. Ohio
green
1 sentence2021When a decision on a motion to suppress is challenged, we accept the trial court’s findings of fact that are supported by 4 Terry v Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). 5 The issue Nelson raised in his suppression motion was whether Officer Esparza had reasonable suspicion to detain Nelson. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Gibson v. Ada County
green
2 sentences2008STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review is explained in Gibson v. Ada County, 142 Idaho 746 , 133 P.3d 1211 (2006): In reviewing the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss, the standard of review is the same as that used in summary judgment. 2008STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review is explained in Gibson v. Ada County, 142 Idaho 746 , 133 P.3d 1211 (2006): In reviewing the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss, the standard of review is the same as that used in summary judgment. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Reyes green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Urrutia v. Blaine County green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Payette River Property Owners Ass'n v. Board of Commissioners green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Jefferson County v. Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Johnson v. Bennett Lumber Co. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Minich v. Gem State Developers, Inc. green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.