6 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Stattongreen2 sentences2013Id. 2013Id. | 1 | 3 |
cluster 392706green2 sentences1986Bryant v. Technical Research Co., 654 F.2d 1337, 1345 (9th Cir.1981) (interpreting Idaho law); Alm, supra, at 592 ; Oak Grove Investors v. Bell & Gossett Co., 99 Nev. 616 , 668 P.2d 1075, 1080 (1983). 1986Bryant v. Technical Research Co., 654 F.2d 1337, 1345 (9th Cir.1981) (interpreting Idaho law); Alm, supra, at 592 ; Oak Grove Investors v. Bell & Gossett Co., 99 Nev. 616 , 668 P.2d 1075, 1080 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
Oak Grove Investors v. Bell & Gossett Co.green2 sentences1986Bryant v. Technical Research Co., 654 F.2d 1337, 1345 (9th Cir.1981) (interpreting Idaho law); Alm, supra, at 592 ; Oak Grove Investors v. Bell & Gossett Co., 99 Nev. 616 , 668 P.2d 1075, 1080 (1983). 1986Bryant v. Technical Research Co., 654 F.2d 1337, 1345 (9th Cir.1981) (interpreting Idaho law); Alm, supra, at 592 ; Oak Grove Investors v. Bell & Gossett Co., 99 Nev. 616 , 668 P.2d 1075, 1080 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
Ferguson v. Bd. of Trustees of Bonner Cty. Sch.green2 sentences1979No. 82, 98 Idaho 359, 364 , 564 P.2d 971, 976 (1977), this Court recognized that a “teaching position was a property interest and [a teacher] could not be deprived of this interest without notice and an opportunity to be heard.” In that case the primary issue was procedural due process, /. e., the adequacy of the notice of charges and the adequacy of the hearing. 1979No. 82, 98 Idaho 359, 364 , 564 P.2d 971, 976 (1977), this Court recognized that a “teaching position was a property interest and [a teacher] could not be deprived of this interest without notice and an opportunity to be heard.” In that case the primary issue was procedural due process, /. e., the adequacy of the notice of charges and the adequacy of the hearing. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Faretta v. California
green
1 sentence2013Where a defendant waived counsel and represented himself at trial, appellate review of the validity of the waiver includes consideration of the adequacy of warnings by the trial court to the defendant concerning “the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation” so that the defendant “knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.” Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Alm v. Aluminum Co. of America
green
2 sentences1986Bryant v. Technical Research Co., 654 F.2d 1337, 1345 (9th Cir.1981) (interpreting Idaho law); Alm, supra, at 592 ; Oak Grove Investors v. Bell & Gossett Co., 99 Nev. 616 , 668 P.2d 1075, 1080 (1983). 1986Bryant v. Technical Research Co., 654 F.2d 1337, 1345 (9th Cir.1981) (interpreting Idaho law); Alm, supra, at 592 ; Oak Grove Investors v. Bell & Gossett Co., 99 Nev. 616 , 668 P.2d 1075, 1080 (1983). | 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.