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.
7 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2022 1 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. Perrygreen2 sentences2016In State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 224 , 245 P.3d 961, 976 (2010), this Court articulated the test for cases on appeal that involve unobjected-to fundamental error: (1) the defendant must demonstrate that one or more of the defendant’s unwaived constitutional rights was violated; (2) the error must be clear or obvious, without the need for any additional information not contained in the appellate record, including information as to whether the failure to object was a tactical decision; and (S) the defendant must demonstrate that the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights, meaning (in 2016In State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 224 , 245 P.3d 961, 976 (2010), this Court articulated the test for cases on appeal that involve unobjected-to fundamental error: (1) the defendant must demonstrate that one or more of the defendant’s unwaived constitutional rights was violated; (2) the error must be clear or obvious, without the need for any additional information not contained in the appellate record, including information as to whether the failure to object was a tactical decision; and (S) the defendant must demonstrate that the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights, meaning (in | 1 | 2 |
Sword v. Sweetgreen2 sentences2013Sword v. Sweet, 140 Idaho 242, 252 , 92 P.3d 492, 502 (2004). 2013Sword v. Sweet, 140 Idaho 242, 252 , 92 P.3d 492, 502 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
Foster v. Johnstonegreen2 sentences2005Foster, 107 Idaho at 67 , 685 P.2d at 808 (stating that the estoppel test in Lewis is used for insurance contract cases). 2005Foster, 107 Idaho at 67 , 685 P.2d at 808 (stating that the estoppel test in Lewis is used for insurance contract cases). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stockwell v. Stockwell
green
2 sentences2022In Stockwell, the Court articulated a framework for disputes where a non-parent seeks custody of a child against the wishes of the child’s biological parent. 116 Idaho at 299 , 775 P.2d at 613 . 2022In Stockwell, the Court articulated a framework for disputes where a non-parent seeks custody of a child against the wishes of the child’s biological parent. 116 Idaho at 299 , 775 P.2d at 613 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Jane Doe v. Jane Doe I
green
2 sentences2022Recently, in Doe, the Court unequivocally rejected any reading of Stockwell that would allow for an “independent custody action brought by a non-parent[,]” i.e., a common-law cause of action for custody of a child by a non-parent against a biological parent. 162 Idaho at 257 , 395 P.3d at 1290 . 2022Recently, in Doe, the Court unequivocally rejected any reading of Stockwell that would allow for an “independent custody action brought by a non-parent[,]” i.e., a common-law cause of action for custody of a child by a non-parent against a biological parent. 162 Idaho at 257 , 395 P.3d at 1290 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Newman
green
2 sentences2017This Court articulated the standard for the search of a vehicle pursuant to the automobile exception in State v. Newman, 149 Idaho 596 , 237 P.3d 1222 (Ct. App. 2010). 2017This Court articulated the standard for the search of a vehicle pursuant to the automobile exception in State v. Newman, 149 Idaho 596 , 237 P.3d 1222 (Ct. App. 2010). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Lewis v. Continental Life and Accident Co.
green
2 sentences2005In Lewis v. Continental Life & Accident Co., 93 Idaho at 351 , 461 P.2d at 246 , this Court articulated a doctrine of estoppel specifically applicable to insurance contract disputes. 2005In Lewis v. Continental Life & Accident Co., 93 Idaho at 351 , 461 P.2d at 246 , this Court articulated a doctrine of estoppel specifically applicable to insurance contract disputes. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Terry v. Ohio
green
1 sentence1977And in making that assessment it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard: would the facts available to the officer at the moment of seizure or search ‘warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief’ that the action taken was appropriate?” 392 U.S. at 21-22 , 88 S.Ct. at 1880. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.