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 1 courts 1975–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Willie Decoster, Jr.green2 sentences1986My dissent today is grounded in my belief that on this record appellant has demonstrated that he was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel at trial and the right to a speedy trial. 1 I begin by analyzing whether trial counsel furnished effective assistance under the standards articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), which standards are set forth fully below, and further, whether counsel’s performance failed to comport with the test adopted by this Court in State v. Tucker, 97 Idaho 4 , 539 P 1986My dissent today is grounded in my belief that on this record appellant has demonstrated that he was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel at trial and the right to a speedy trial. [1] I begin by analyzing whether trial counsel furnished effective assistance under the standards articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), which standards are set forth fully below, and further, whether counsel's performance failed to comport with the test adopted by this Court in State v. Tucker, 97 Idaho 4 , 539 | 4 | 4 |
State v. James W. Clarkgreen2 sentences2023This Court’s opinion in State v. Clark, 161 Idaho 372, 374 , 386 P.3d 895, 897 (2016), incorrectly describes the standard of review as follows: “In reviewing the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, the appellate court must independently consider the evidence in the record and determine whether a reasonable mind could conclude that the defendant’s guilt as to such material evidence of the offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. 2023This Court’s opinion in State v. Clark, 161 Idaho 372, 374 , 386 P.3d 895, 897 (2016), incorrectly describes the standard of review as follows: “In reviewing the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, the appellate court must independently consider the evidence in the record and determine whether a reasonable mind could conclude that the defendant’s guilt as to such material evidence of the offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Tuckergreen2 sentences1986My dissent today is grounded in my belief that on this record appellant has demonstrated that he was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel at trial and the right to a speedy trial. [1] I begin by analyzing whether trial counsel furnished effective assistance under the standards articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), which standards are set forth fully below, and further, whether counsel's performance failed to comport with the test adopted by this Court in State v. Tucker, 97 Idaho 4 , 539 1986My dissent today is grounded in my belief that on this record appellant has demonstrated that he was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel at trial and the right to a speedy trial. [1] I begin by analyzing whether trial counsel furnished effective assistance under the standards articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), which standards are set forth fully below, and further, whether counsel's performance failed to comport with the test adopted by this Court in State v. Tucker, 97 Idaho 4 , 539 | 1 | 2 |
Washington County v. Paradisgreen2 sentences2004This enunciation of the test was derived from Sun Valley Co., 109 Idaho at 429 , 708 P.2d 147 , citing Washington County v. Paradis, 38 Idaho 364, 369 , 222 P. 775, 777 (1923). 2004This enunciation of the test was derived from Sun Valley Co., 109 Idaho at 429 , 708 P.2d 147 , citing Washington County v. Paradis, 38 Idaho 364, 369 , 222 P. 775, 777 (1923). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Power County
green
2 sentences2004A close reading of Paradis , however, indicates the source of the test as Jones v. Power County, 27 Idaho 656 , 150 P. 35 (1915), where the Court said in discussing general and special laws: A statute is general if its terms apply to, and its provisions operate upon, all persons and subject matters in like situation. ( See DILLON ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, 5th ed., sec. 142.) The true test seems to be: Is the classification capricious, unreasonable or arbitrary? 2004A close reading of Paradis , however, indicates the source of the test as Jones v. Power County, 27 Idaho 656 , 150 P. 35 (1915), where the Court said in discussing general and special laws: A statute is general if its terms apply to, and its provisions operate upon, all persons and subject matters in like situation. ( See DILLON ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, 5th ed., sec. 142.) The true test seems to be: Is the classification capricious, unreasonable or arbitrary? | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Sun Valley Co. v. City of Sun Valley
green
2 sentences2004This enunciation of the test was derived from Sun Valley Co., 109 Idaho at 429 , 708 P.2d 147 , citing Washington County v. Paradis, 38 Idaho 364, 369 , 222 P. 775, 777 (1923). 2004This enunciation of the test was derived from Sun Valley Co., 109 Idaho at 429 , 708 P.2d 147 , citing Washington County v. Paradis, 38 Idaho 364, 369 , 222 P. 775, 777 (1923). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences1986My dissent today is grounded in my belief that on this record appellant has demonstrated that he was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel at trial and the right to a speedy trial. [1] I begin by analyzing whether trial counsel furnished effective assistance under the standards articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), which standards are set forth fully below, and further, whether counsel's performance failed to comport with the test adopted by this Court in State v. Tucker, 97 Idaho 4 , 539 1986My dissent today is grounded in my belief that on this record appellant has demonstrated that he was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel at trial and the right to a speedy trial. [1] I begin by analyzing whether trial counsel furnished effective assistance under the standards articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), which standards are set forth fully below, and further, whether counsel's performance failed to comport with the test adopted by this Court in State v. Tucker, 97 Idaho 4 , 539 | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.