6 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1966–2015 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. Hoisingtongreen2 sentences2015“Due process requires the exclusion of identification evidence if police suggestiveness created a substantial risk of mistaken identification, except where the reliability of the identification is sufficient to outweigh the corrupting effect of the suggestive identification.” Id. (citation omitted) (emphasis added). “[S]ingle subject showups are inherently suspect and generally not condoned____” State v. Hoisington, 104 Idaho 153, 162 , 657 P.2d 17, 26 (1983). 2015“Due process requires the exclusion of identification evidence if police suggestiveness created a substantial risk of mistaken identification, except where the reliability of the identification is sufficient to outweigh the corrupting effect of the suggestive identification.” Id. (citation omitted) (emphasis added). “[S]ingle subject showups are inherently suspect and generally not condoned____” State v. Hoisington, 104 Idaho 153, 162 , 657 P.2d 17, 26 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Trevinogreen2 sentences2015In Payne , this Court reaffirmed the factors Idaho courts consider when examining claims involving eyewitness identification procedures: For an out-of-court identification to taint an in-court identification, the out-of-court identification must have been “so suggestive that there is a very substantial likelihood of misidentification.” State v. Trevino, 132 Idaho 888, 892 , 980 P.2d 552, 556 (1999). 2015In Payne , this Court reaffirmed the factors Idaho courts consider when examining claims involving eyewitness identification procedures: For an out-of-court identification to taint an in-court identification, the out-of-court identification must have been “so suggestive that there is a very substantial likelihood of misidentification.” State v. Trevino, 132 Idaho 888, 892 , 980 P.2d 552, 556 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
Saykhamchone v. Stategreen2 sentences2010In Charboneau v. State, 140 Idaho 789, 793 , 102 P.3d 1108, 1112 (2004) (quoting Saykhamchone v. State, 127 Idaho 319, 321 , 900 P.2d 795, 797 (1995)), this Court reaffirmed the standard of review for post-conviction cases when determining whether summary dismissal was proper: In determining whether a motion for summary disposition is properly granted, a court must review the facts in a light most favorable to the petitioner, and determine whether they would entitle petitioner to relief if accepted as true. 2010In Charboneau v. State, 140 Idaho 789, 793 , 102 P.3d 1108, 1112 (2004) (quoting Saykhamchone v. State, 127 Idaho 319, 321 , 900 P.2d 795, 797 (1995)), this Court reaffirmed the standard of review for post-conviction cases when determining whether summary dismissal was proper: In determining whether a motion for summary disposition is properly granted, a court must review the facts in a light most favorable to the petitioner, and determine whether they would entitle petitioner to relief if accepted as true. | 1 | 1 |
Charboneau v. Stategreen2 sentences2010In Charboneau v. State, 140 Idaho 789, 793 , 102 P.3d 1108, 1112 (2004) (quoting Saykhamchone v. State, 127 Idaho 319, 321 , 900 P.2d 795, 797 (1995)), this Court reaffirmed the standard of review for post-conviction cases when determining whether summary dismissal was proper: In determining whether a motion for summary disposition is properly granted, a court must review the facts in a light most favorable to the petitioner, and determine whether they would entitle petitioner to relief if accepted as true. 2010In Charboneau v. State, 140 Idaho 789, 793 , 102 P.3d 1108, 1112 (2004) (quoting Saykhamchone v. State, 127 Idaho 319, 321 , 900 P.2d 795, 797 (1995)), this Court reaffirmed the standard of review for post-conviction cases when determining whether summary dismissal was proper: In determining whether a motion for summary disposition is properly granted, a court must review the facts in a light most favorable to the petitioner, and determine whether they would entitle petitioner to relief if accepted as true. | 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. Thompson
green
2 sentences2008In reaching this conclusion, this Court reaffirmed its rule that “in interpreting provisions of our constitution that are similar to those of the federal constitution we are free to extend protections under our constitution beyond those granted by the United States Supreme Court under the federal constitution.” Id. at 748 , 760 P.2d at 1164 . 2008In reaching this conclusion, this Court reaffirmed its rule that “in interpreting provisions of our constitution that are similar to those of the federal constitution we are free to extend protections under our constitution beyond those granted by the United States Supreme Court under the federal constitution.” Id. at 748 , 760 P.2d at 1164 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. DeGrat
green
2 sentences1996In State v. DeGrat, 128 Idaho 352 , 913 P.2d 568 (1996), this Court reaffirmed the rule from Byers , concluding that Idaho courts “no longer require corroboration in sexual crime trials.” 128 Idaho at 356 , 913 P.2d at 572 . 1996In State v. DeGrat, 128 Idaho 352 , 913 P.2d 568 (1996), this Court reaffirmed the rule from Byers , concluding that Idaho courts “no longer require corroboration in sexual crime trials.” 128 Idaho at 356 , 913 P.2d at 572 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Higgins
green
2 sentences1995In Higgins , the Court reaffirmed that error in the admission of expert testimony is not fundamental error. 122 Idaho at 596 , 836 P.2d at 542 . 1995In Higgins , the Court reaffirmed that error in the admission of expert testimony is not fundamental error. 122 Idaho at 596 , 836 P.2d at 542 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Sawyer v. Huff
green
1 sentence1966In In re Eggan’s Estate, 86 Idaho 328 , 386 P.2d 563 (1963), this court reaffirmed the rule announced in Hedin but distinguished it factually. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
In Re Eggan's Estate
green
1 sentence1966In In re Eggan’s Estate, 86 Idaho 328 , 386 P.2d 563 (1963), this court reaffirmed the rule announced in Hedin but distinguished it factually. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.