6 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Randy L. McKinney v. Stategreen2 sentences2026McKinney v. State, 162 Idaho 286, 293 , 396 P.3d 1168, 1175 (2017). “[T]he reason subsection (b) requires the twenty- day notice, but not subsection (c), is because the subsection (c) motion itself serves as notice that summary dismissal is being sought.” Saykhamchone v. State, 127 Idaho 319, 322 , 900 P.2d 795, 798 (1995) (citing State v. Christensen, 102 Idaho 487, 488 , 632 P.2d 676, 677 (1981)). 2026McKinney v. State, 162 Idaho 286, 293 , 396 P.3d 1168, 1175 (2017). “[T]he reason subsection (b) requires the twenty- day notice, but not subsection (c), is because the subsection (c) motion itself serves as notice that summary dismissal is being sought.” Saykhamchone v. State, 127 Idaho 319, 322 , 900 P.2d 795, 798 (1995) (citing State v. Christensen, 102 Idaho 487, 488 , 632 P.2d 676, 677 (1981)). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Christensengreen2 sentences2026McKinney v. State, 162 Idaho 286, 293 , 396 P.3d 1168, 1175 (2017). “[T]he reason subsection (b) requires the twenty- day notice, but not subsection (c), is because the subsection (c) motion itself serves as notice that summary dismissal is being sought.” Saykhamchone v. State, 127 Idaho 319, 322 , 900 P.2d 795, 798 (1995) (citing State v. Christensen, 102 Idaho 487, 488 , 632 P.2d 676, 677 (1981)). 2026McKinney v. State, 162 Idaho 286, 293 , 396 P.3d 1168, 1175 (2017). “[T]he reason subsection (b) requires the twenty- day notice, but not subsection (c), is because the subsection (c) motion itself serves as notice that summary dismissal is being sought.” Saykhamchone v. State, 127 Idaho 319, 322 , 900 P.2d 795, 798 (1995) (citing State v. Christensen, 102 Idaho 487, 488 , 632 P.2d 676, 677 (1981)). | 2 | 2 |
Saykhamchone v. Stategreen2 sentences2026McKinney v. State, 162 Idaho 286, 293 , 396 P.3d 1168, 1175 (2017). “[T]he reason subsection (b) requires the twenty- day notice, but not subsection (c), is because the subsection (c) motion itself serves as notice that summary dismissal is being sought.” Saykhamchone v. State, 127 Idaho 319, 322 , 900 P.2d 795, 798 (1995) (citing State v. Christensen, 102 Idaho 487, 488 , 632 P.2d 676, 677 (1981)). 2026McKinney v. State, 162 Idaho 286, 293 , 396 P.3d 1168, 1175 (2017). “[T]he reason subsection (b) requires the twenty- day notice, but not subsection (c), is because the subsection (c) motion itself serves as notice that summary dismissal is being sought.” Saykhamchone v. State, 127 Idaho 319, 322 , 900 P.2d 795, 798 (1995) (citing State v. Christensen, 102 Idaho 487, 488 , 632 P.2d 676, 677 (1981)). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Martinez v. State
green
2 sentences2015Id. 2006Id. | 2 | 2006–2015 |
Kelly v. State
green
2 sentences2019Kelly, 149 Idaho at 523 , 236 P.3d at 1283 ; see also McKinney v. State, 162 Idaho 286, 292 , 396 P.3d 1168, 1174 (2017) (concluding notice not required when State argued there was no evidentiary basis and district court ultimately concluded failure to allege supporting facts). 2019Kelly, 149 Idaho at 523 , 236 P.3d at 1283 ; see also McKinney v. State, 162 Idaho 286, 292 , 396 P.3d 1168, 1174 (2017) (concluding notice not required when State argued there was no evidentiary basis and district court ultimately concluded failure to allege supporting facts). | 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.