7 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Maxfield v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Maxfield v. State, 108 Idaho 493, 497 , 700 P.2d 115, 119 (Ct. App. 1985). 2017Maxfield v. State, 108 Idaho 493, 497 , 700 P.2d 115, 119 (Ct. App. 1985). | 4 | 4 |
Basic American, Inc. v. Shatilagreen2 sentences2020The purpose behind the doctrine is to prevent “a plaintiff from prosecuting an appeal which, if successful, might result in a reduced recovery.” Basic Am., Inc. v. Shatila, 133 Idaho 726, 745 , 992 P.2d 175, 194 (1999). 2020The purpose behind the doctrine is to prevent “a plaintiff from prosecuting an appeal which, if successful, might result in a reduced recovery.” Basic Am., Inc. v. Shatila, 133 Idaho 726, 745 , 992 P.2d 175, 194 (1999). | 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. Hester
green
1 sentence2005The purpose behind this rule is that: [A] motion in limine is based on an alleged or anticipated factual scenario, [and] without the benefit of all the other actual evidence which will be admitted at trial, the trial judge will not always be able to make an informed decision regarding the admissibility of the evidence prior to the time the evidence is actually presented at trial. *702 Hester, 114 Idaho at 699 , 760 P.2d at 38 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Hester
green
1 sentence2005The purpose behind this rule is that: [A] motion in limine is based on an alleged or anticipated factual scenario, [and] without the benefit of all the other actual evidence which will be admitted at trial, the trial judge will not always be able to make an informed decision regarding the admissibility of the evidence prior to the time the evidence is actually presented at trial. *702 Hester, 114 Idaho at 699 , 760 P.2d at 38 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Oregon v. Elstad
green
2 sentences1997Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985). 1997Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Pope v. Intermountain Gas Co.
green
2 sentences1992Maxfield v. State, 108 Idaho 493, 497 , 700 P.2d 115, 119 (Ct.App.1985), citing I.R.C.P. 52(a) and Pope v. Intermountain Gas Co., 103 Idaho 217 , 646 P.2d 988 (1982). 1992Maxfield v. State, 108 Idaho 493, 497 , 700 P.2d 115, 119 (Ct.App.1985), citing I.R.C.P. 52(a) and Pope v. Intermountain Gas Co., 103 Idaho 217 , 646 P.2d 988 (1982). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.