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 1995–2020 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. Sivakgreen2 sentences1998See State v. Sivak, 127 Idaho 387, 393 , 901 P.2d 494, 500 (1995); State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904 , 908 P.2d 1211 (1995). 1998See State v. Sivak, 127 Idaho 387, 393 , 901 P.2d 494, 500 (1995); State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904 , 908 P.2d 1211 (1995). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ticor Title Co. v. Stanion
green
2 sentences2020Ticor, 144 Idaho at 126 . 2020Ticor, 144 Idaho at 126 , 157 P.3d at 620 . | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Fields
green
2 sentences1995As to the third element of our inquiry, we have had the opportunity to review the ex-cessiveness requirement in light of the recent amendment to I.C. § 19-2827(e)(3) in State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904 , 908 P.2d 1211 (1995) 1995 WL 61994 . 1995As to the third element of our inquiry, we have had the opportunity to review the ex-cessiveness requirement in light of the recent amendment to I.C. § 19-2827(e)(3) in State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904 , 908 P.2d 1211 (1995) 1995 WL 61994 . | 2 | 1995–1998 |
State v. Lawrence
green
2 sentences2007Subsequently, in a footnote, this Court indicated that the third element of the test, “[t]hat the party seeking the new trial was taken by surprise when the false testimony was given and was unable to meet it or did not know of its falsity until after the trial,” requires “that a defendant be diligent in determining whether false testimony will be presented and in offering any available evidence to rebut it.” State v. Lawrence, 112 Idaho 149 , 152 n. 2, 730 P.2d 1069 , 1072 n. 2 (Ct.App.1986) (citing Larrison, 24 F.2d at 88 ). 2007Subsequently, in a footnote, this Court indicated that the third element of the test, “[t]hat the party seeking the new trial was taken by surprise when the false testimony was given and was unable to meet it or did not know of its falsity until after the trial,” requires “that a defendant be diligent in determining whether false testimony will be presented and in offering any available evidence to rebut it.” State v. Lawrence, 112 Idaho 149 , 152 n. 2, 730 P.2d 1069 , 1072 n. 2 (Ct.App.1986) (citing Larrison, 24 F.2d at 88 ). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Larrison v. United States
red
1 sentence2007Subsequently, in a footnote, this Court indicated that the third element of the test, “[t]hat the party seeking the new trial was taken by surprise when the false testimony was given and was unable to meet it or did not know of its falsity until after the trial,” requires “that a defendant be diligent in determining whether false testimony will be presented and in offering any available evidence to rebut it.” State v. Lawrence, 112 Idaho 149 , 152 n. 2, 730 P.2d 1069 , 1072 n. 2 (Ct.App.1986) (citing Larrison, 24 F.2d at 88 ). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.