6 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Russell Peterson v. Laura Knight Petersongreen2 sentences2023See Peterson v. Peterson, 153 Idaho 318, 325 , 281 P.3d 1096, 1103 (2012). 2023See Peterson v. Peterson, 153 Idaho 318, 325 , 281 P.3d 1096, 1103 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
Harrigfeld v. Hancockgreen2 sentences2018See Harrigfeld v. Hancock , 140 Idaho 134 , 139, 90 P.3d 884 , 889 (2004) 4 These elements are reformatted from earlier iterations. 2018See Harrigfeld v. Hancock , 140 Idaho 134 , 139, 90 P.3d 884 , 889 (2004) 4 These elements are reformatted from earlier iterations. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Regestergreen2 sentences2010But see Gollaher v. United States, 419 F.2d 520, 530 (9th Cir.1969) (rejecting the Thomas analysis and holding that “justice is better served by a forth-right disclosure of the state of mind of the judge” and that “[t]o belabor a distinction between considerations [of amenability to rehabilitation] and a sentence which is in part imposed as a penalty for going to trial would be a waste of time.”) The rights that may be implicated when a refusal to admit guilt is considered in sentencing include the defendant’s right to a trial at which the government must prove guilt, Lawrence, 112 Idaho at 15 2010But see Gollaher v. United States, 419 F.2d 520, 530 (9th Cir.1969) (rejecting the Thomas analysis and holding that “justice is better served by a forth-right disclosure of the state of mind of the judge” and that “[t]o belabor a distinction between considerations [of amenability to rehabilitation] and a sentence which is in part imposed as a penalty for going to trial would be a waste of time.”) The rights that may be implicated when a refusal to admit guilt is considered in sentencing include the defendant’s right to a trial at which the government must prove guilt, Lawrence, 112 Idaho at 15 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Robert E. Gollaher and Gollaher Construction, Inc., a Corporation v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2010But see Gollaher v. United States, 419 F.2d 520, 530 (9th Cir.1969) (rejecting the Thomas analysis and holding that “justice is better served by a forth-right disclosure of the state of mind of the judge” and that “[t]o belabor a distinction between considerations [of amenability to rehabilitation] and a sentence which is in part imposed as a penalty for going to trial would be a waste of time.”) The rights that may be implicated when a refusal to admit guilt is considered in sentencing include the defendant’s right to a trial at which the government must prove guilt, Lawrence, 112 Idaho at 15 2010But see Gollaher v. United States, 419 F.2d 520, 530 (9th Cir.1969) (rejecting the Thomas analysis and holding that “justice is better served by a forth-right disclosure of the state of mind of the judge” and that “[t]o belabor a distinction between considerations [of amenability to rehabilitation] and a sentence which is in part imposed as a penalty for going to trial would be a waste of time.”) The rights that may be implicated when a refusal to admit guilt is considered in sentencing include the defendant’s right to a trial at which the government must prove guilt, Lawrence, 112 Idaho at 15 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lawrencegreen2 sentences2010But see Gollaher v. United States, 419 F.2d 520, 530 (9th Cir.1969) (rejecting the Thomas analysis and holding that “justice is better served by a forth-right disclosure of the state of mind of the judge” and that “[t]o belabor a distinction between considerations [of amenability to rehabilitation] and a sentence which is in part imposed as a penalty for going to trial would be a waste of time.”) The rights that may be implicated when a refusal to admit guilt is considered in sentencing include the defendant’s right to a trial at which the government must prove guilt, Lawrence, 112 Idaho at 15 2010But see Gollaher v. United States, 419 F.2d 520, 530 (9th Cir.1969) (rejecting the Thomas analysis and holding that “justice is better served by a forth-right disclosure of the state of mind of the judge” and that “[t]o belabor a distinction between considerations [of amenability to rehabilitation] and a sentence which is in part imposed as a penalty for going to trial would be a waste of time.”) The rights that may be implicated when a refusal to admit guilt is considered in sentencing include the defendant’s right to a trial at which the government must prove guilt, Lawrence, 112 Idaho at 15 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Schmoll
green
2 sentences2025The Court rejected the Thomas test, stating: “The standard the court declared itself to be using to compare these two statutes was ‘substantially similar,’ but the court applied this standard very narrowly by turning the comparison on the issue of the rebuttable presumption.”3 Schmoll, 144 Idaho at 802 , 172 P.3d at 557 . 2025The Court rejected the Thomas test, stating: “The standard the court declared itself to be using to compare these two statutes was ‘substantially similar,’ but the court applied this standard very narrowly by turning the comparison on the issue of the rebuttable presumption.”3 Schmoll, 144 Idaho at 802 , 172 P.3d at 557 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Joseph L. Thomas v. United States
green
2 sentences2010But see Gollaher v. United States, 419 F.2d 520, 530 (9th Cir.1969) (rejecting the Thomas analysis and holding that “justice is better served by a forth-right disclosure of the state of mind of the judge” and that “[t]o belabor a distinction between considerations [of amenability to rehabilitation] and a sentence which is in part imposed as a penalty for going to trial would be a waste of time.”) The rights that may be implicated when a refusal to admit guilt is considered in sentencing include the defendant’s right to a trial at which the government must prove guilt, Lawrence, 112 Idaho at 15 2010But see Gollaher v. United States, 419 F.2d 520, 530 (9th Cir.1969) (rejecting the Thomas analysis and holding that “justice is better served by a forth-right disclosure of the state of mind of the judge” and that “[t]o belabor a distinction between considerations [of amenability to rehabilitation] and a sentence which is in part imposed as a penalty for going to trial would be a waste of time.”) The rights that may be implicated when a refusal to admit guilt is considered in sentencing include the defendant’s right to a trial at which the government must prove guilt, Lawrence, 112 Idaho at 15 | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Cope v. Cope
green
2 sentences2006One of them was Madsen’s reliance upon Cope v. Cope, 158 Mont. 388 , 493 P.2d 336 (1971), as a defense to Thomas’s claim of an easement by prescription. 2006One of them was Madsen’s reliance upon Cope v. Cope, 158 Mont. 388 , 493 P.2d 336 (1971), as a defense to Thomas’s claim of an easement by prescription. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Drapeau
green
2 sentences1994Although several years ago our Supreme Court held that motions for new trial are no longer limited to the statutory grounds in view of the applicable criminal rule, see State v. Drapeau, 97 Idaho 685 , 691 n. 4, 551 P.2d 972 , 978 n. 4 (1976), the Court recently deviated from that stance, citing several cases that preceded the adoption by the Court of the criminal rule. 1994Although several years ago our Supreme Court held that motions for new trial are no longer limited to the statutory grounds in view of the applicable criminal rule, see State v. Drapeau, 97 Idaho 685 , 691 n. 4, 551 P.2d 972 , 978 n. 4 (1976), the Court recently deviated from that stance, citing several cases that preceded the adoption by the Court of the criminal rule. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.