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.
6 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Paynegreen2 sentences2019A motion that would not have been granted by the trial court ends the inquiry, as counsel’s conduct cannot have fallen below a reasonable standard for failing to object to admissible evidence. 4 Payne, 146 Idaho 548, 562 , 199 P.3d 123, 137 (2008). 2019A motion that would not have been granted by the trial court ends the inquiry, as counsel’s conduct cannot have fallen below a reasonable standard for failing to object to admissible evidence. 4 Payne, 146 Idaho 548, 562 , 199 P.3d 123, 137 (2008). | 4 | 5 |
Estrada v. Stategreen2 sentences2020If the motion should have been granted, however, “the petitioner is still required to overcome the presumption that the decision not to file the motion ‘was within the wide range of permissible discretion and trial strategy.’ ” Id. at 861 (emphasis added) (quoting Estrada v. State, 143 Idaho 558, 561 , 149 P.3d 833, 836 (2006)). 2020If the motion should have been granted, however, “the petitioner is still required to overcome the presumption that the decision not to file the motion ‘was within the wide range of permissible discretion and trial strategy.’ ” Id. at 861 (emphasis added) (quoting Estrada v. State, 143 Idaho 558, 561 , 149 P.3d 833, 836 (2006)). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
John David Wurdemann v. State
green
2 sentences2019Second, if the motion would have been granted, “the petitioner is still required to overcome the presumption that the decision not to file the motion ‘was within the wide range of permissible discretion and trial strategy.’” Wurdemann, 161 Idaho at 71 , 390 P.3d at 443 (quoting Estrada v. State, 143 Idaho 558, 561 , 149 P.3d 833, 836 (2006)). 2019Second, if the motion would have been granted, “the petitioner is still required to overcome the presumption that the decision not to file the motion ‘was within the wide range of permissible discretion and trial strategy.’” Wurdemann, 161 Idaho at 71 , 390 P.3d at 443 (quoting Estrada v. State, 143 Idaho 558, 561 , 149 P.3d 833, 836 (2006)). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.