7 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Vogtgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Woolf, 120 Idaho 21, 24 , 813 P.2d 360, 363 (Ct. App. 1991) (holding the subjective intent of a defendant is immaterial to defending against, or securing, a conviction under section 18- 8004(1)(a)); cf. Matter of Vogt, 117 Idaho 545, 546 , 789 P.2d 1136, 1137 (1990) (holding that “the State is not required to prove that a person had any intent to drive” in the context of a driver’s license suspension hearing based on the defendant’s refusal to submit to a field sobriety test). 2021See State v. Woolf, 120 Idaho 21, 24 , 813 P.2d 360, 363 (Ct. App. 1991) (holding the subjective intent of a defendant is immaterial to defending against, or securing, a conviction under section 18- 8004(1)(a)); cf. Matter of Vogt, 117 Idaho 545, 546 , 789 P.2d 1136, 1137 (1990) (holding that “the State is not required to prove that a person had any intent to drive” in the context of a driver’s license suspension hearing based on the defendant’s refusal to submit to a field sobriety test). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Woolfgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Woolf, 120 Idaho 21, 24 , 813 P.2d 360, 363 (Ct. App. 1991) (holding the subjective intent of a defendant is immaterial to defending against, or securing, a conviction under section 18- 8004(1)(a)); cf. Matter of Vogt, 117 Idaho 545, 546 , 789 P.2d 1136, 1137 (1990) (holding that “the State is not required to prove that a person had any intent to drive” in the context of a driver’s license suspension hearing based on the defendant’s refusal to submit to a field sobriety test). 2021See State v. Woolf, 120 Idaho 21, 24 , 813 P.2d 360, 363 (Ct. App. 1991) (holding the subjective intent of a defendant is immaterial to defending against, or securing, a conviction under section 18- 8004(1)(a)); cf. Matter of Vogt, 117 Idaho 545, 546 , 789 P.2d 1136, 1137 (1990) (holding that “the State is not required to prove that a person had any intent to drive” in the context of a driver’s license suspension hearing based on the defendant’s refusal to submit to a field sobriety test). | 2 | 2 |
Elias-Cruz v. Idaho Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2014Elias-Cruz v. Idaho Dep’t of Transp., 153 Idaho 200, 206 , 280 P.3d 703, 709 (2012). 2014Elias-Cruz v. Idaho Dep’t of Transp., 153 Idaho 200, 206 , 280 P.3d 703, 709 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Hansongreen2 sentences1993I.C. § 18-8002(5); Hanson v. State, 121 Idaho 507, 512 , 826 P.2d 468, 473 (1992); see also Clayton v. State, 118 Idaho 59 , 794 P.2d 648 (Ct.App.1990). 1993I.C. § 18-8002(5); Hanson v. State, 121 Idaho 507, 512 , 826 P.2d 468, 473 (1992); see also Clayton v. State, 118 Idaho 59 , 794 P.2d 648 (Ct.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Claytongreen2 sentences1993I.C. § 18-8002(5); Hanson v. State, 121 Idaho 507, 512 , 826 P.2d 468, 473 (1992); see also Clayton v. State, 118 Idaho 59 , 794 P.2d 648 (Ct.App.1990). 1993I.C. § 18-8002(5); Hanson v. State, 121 Idaho 507, 512 , 826 P.2d 468, 473 (1992); see also Clayton v. State, 118 Idaho 59 , 794 P.2d 648 (Ct.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gusman
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Matter of Griffiths
green
2 sentences1993Id.; In re Matter of Griffiths, 113 Idaho 364 , 744 P.2d 92 (1987). 1993Id.; In re Matter of Griffiths, 113 Idaho 364 , 744 P.2d 92 (1987). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.