46 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1887–2025 7 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. Brazilgreen2 sentences2025Id. 2025Id. | 4 | 27 |
Burgess v. Salmon River Canal Co.green2 sentences2000See Burgess v. Salmon River Canal Co., 119 Idaho 299, 306 , 805 P.2d 1223, 1230 (1991). 2000See Burgess v. Salmon River Canal Co., 119 Idaho 299, 306 , 805 P.2d 1223, 1230 (1991). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Spencergreen2 sentences1982“We stated in State v. Spencer, 74 Idaho 173, 184 , 258 P.2d 1147, 1154 (1953): “ ‘Where the issue of guilt is debatable or it appears from the record that the jurors could have reasonably entertained doubt as to the defendant’s guilt and that misconduct of the prosecuting attorney might well have influenced the result, a conviction will be reversed.’ “In the recent case of State v. Smoot, supra, when presented with the issue of whether prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument constituted prejudicial error or harmless error, this Court applied a standard similar to the one utilized in Chap 1982“We stated in State v. Spencer, 74 Idaho 173, 184 , 258 P.2d 1147, 1154 (1953): “ ‘Where the issue of guilt is debatable or it appears from the record that the jurors could have reasonably entertained doubt as to the defendant’s guilt and that misconduct of the prosecuting attorney might well have influenced the result, a conviction will be reversed.’ “In the recent case of State v. Smoot, supra, when presented with the issue of whether prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument constituted prejudicial error or harmless error, this Court applied a standard similar to the one utilized in Chap | 2 | 2 |
Rogers v. Trim Housegreen2 sentences2014See Rogers v. Trim House, 99 Idaho 746, 749 , 588 P.2d 945, 948 (1979). 2014See Rogers v. Trim House, 99 Idaho 746, 749 , 588 P.2d 945, 948 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McBridegreen2 sentences1998Colwell I, 124 Idaho at 565 , 861 P.2d at 1230 ; State v. McBride, 123 Idaho 263, 265 , 846 P.2d 914, 916 (Ct.App.1992). 1998Colwell I, 124 Idaho at 565 , 861 P.2d at 1230 ; State v. McBride, 123 Idaho 263, 265 , 846 P.2d 914, 916 (Ct.App.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Bott v. Idaho State Building Authoritygreen2 sentences1996See, e.g., Bott v. Idaho State Building Authority, 122 Idaho 471, 476 , 835 P.2d 1282, 1287 (1992); Sherwood v. Carter, 119 Idaho 246, 261-62 , 805 P.2d 452, 467-68 (1991); Mann v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 95 Idaho 732, 737 , 518 P.2d 1194, 1199 (1974). 1996See, e.g., Bott v. Idaho State Building Authority, 122 Idaho 471, 476 , 835 P.2d 1282, 1287 (1992); Sherwood v. Carter, 119 Idaho 246, 261-62 , 805 P.2d 452, 467-68 (1991); Mann v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 95 Idaho 732, 737 , 518 P.2d 1194, 1199 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
Mann v. Safeway Stores, Inc.green2 sentences1996See, e.g., Bott v. Idaho State Building Authority, 122 Idaho 471, 476 , 835 P.2d 1282, 1287 (1992); Sherwood v. Carter, 119 Idaho 246, 261-62 , 805 P.2d 452, 467-68 (1991); Mann v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 95 Idaho 732, 737 , 518 P.2d 1194, 1199 (1974). 1996See, e.g., Bott v. Idaho State Building Authority, 122 Idaho 471, 476 , 835 P.2d 1282, 1287 (1992); Sherwood v. Carter, 119 Idaho 246, 261-62 , 805 P.2d 452, 467-68 (1991); Mann v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 95 Idaho 732, 737 , 518 P.2d 1194, 1199 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
Sherwood v. Cartergreen2 sentences1996See, e.g., Bott v. Idaho State Building Authority, 122 Idaho 471, 476 , 835 P.2d 1282, 1287 (1992); Sherwood v. Carter, 119 Idaho 246, 261-62 , 805 P.2d 452, 467-68 (1991); Mann v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 95 Idaho 732, 737 , 518 P.2d 1194, 1199 (1974). 1996See, e.g., Bott v. Idaho State Building Authority, 122 Idaho 471, 476 , 835 P.2d 1282, 1287 (1992); Sherwood v. Carter, 119 Idaho 246, 261-62 , 805 P.2d 452, 467-68 (1991); Mann v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 95 Idaho 732, 737 , 518 P.2d 1194, 1199 (1974). | 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. Aman Gas
green
2 sentences2023“Second, if a variance does exist, then the court examines whether it rises to the level of prejudicial error requiring reversal of the conviction, i.e., whether it is fatal.” Id. (citation omitted). 2023“Second, if a variance does exist, then the court examines whether it rises to the level of prejudicial error requiring reversal of the conviction, i.e., whether it is fatal.” Id. (citation omitted). | 6 | 2010–2023 |
State v. Perry
green
2 sentences2011Perry, 150 Idaho at 228 , 245 P.3d at 980 . 2011Perry, 150 Idaho at 228 , 245 P.3d at 980 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Sherrod
green
2 sentences2001Sherrod, 131 Idaho at 59 , 951 P.2d at 1286 . 2001Sherrod, 131 Idaho at 59 , 951 P.2d at 1286 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Colwell
green
2 sentences1998Colwell I, 124 Idaho at 565 , 861 P.2d at 1230 ; State v. McBride, 123 Idaho 263, 265 , 846 P.2d 914, 916 (Ct.App.1992). 1998Colwell I, 124 Idaho at 565 , 861 P.2d at 1230 ; State v. McBride, 123 Idaho 263, 265 , 846 P.2d 914, 916 (Ct.App.1992). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp.
green
2 sentences1983Olson Corp., 8 Cal.3d 121 , 104 Cal.Rptr. 433 , 501 P.2d 1153 (1972), which rejected the portion of the Restatement rule adopted in Shields requiring the plaintiff to prove not only that the product was in a defective condition, but also that it was unreasonably dangerous. 1983Olson Corp., 8 Cal.3d 121 , 104 Cal.Rptr. 433 , 501 P.2d 1153 (1972), which rejected the portion of the Restatement rule adopted in Shields requiring the plaintiff to prove not only that the product was in a defective condition, but also that it was unreasonably dangerous. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Smoot
green
2 sentences1982“We stated in State v. Spencer, 74 Idaho 173, 184 , 258 P.2d 1147, 1154 (1953): “ ‘Where the issue of guilt is debatable or it appears from the record that the jurors could have reasonably entertained doubt as to the defendant’s guilt and that misconduct of the prosecuting attorney might well have influenced the result, a conviction will be reversed.’ “In the recent case of State v. Smoot, supra, when presented with the issue of whether prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument constituted prejudicial error or harmless error, this Court applied a standard similar to the one utilized in Chap 1982"We stated in State v. Spencer, 74 Idaho 173, 184 , 258 P.2d 1147, 1154 (1953): "`Where the issue of guilt is debatable or it appears from the record that the jurors could have reasonably entertained doubt as to the defendant's guilt and that misconduct of the prosecuting attorney might well have influenced the result, a conviction will be reversed.' "In the recent case of State v. Smoot, supra , when presented with the issue of whether prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument constituted prejudicial error or harmless error, this Court applied a standard similar to the one utilized in Chap | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences1982“We stated in State v. Spencer, 74 Idaho 173, 184 , 258 P.2d 1147, 1154 (1953): “ ‘Where the issue of guilt is debatable or it appears from the record that the jurors could have reasonably entertained doubt as to the defendant’s guilt and that misconduct of the prosecuting attorney might well have influenced the result, a conviction will be reversed.’ “In the recent case of State v. Smoot, supra, when presented with the issue of whether prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument constituted prejudicial error or harmless error, this Court applied a standard similar to the one utilized in Chap 1982“We stated in State v. Spencer, 74 Idaho 173, 184 , 258 P.2d 1147, 1154 (1953): “ ‘Where the issue of guilt is debatable or it appears from the record that the jurors could have reasonably entertained doubt as to the defendant’s guilt and that misconduct of the prosecuting attorney might well have influenced the result, a conviction will be reversed.’ “In the recent case of State v. Smoot, supra, when presented with the issue of whether prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument constituted prejudicial error or harmless error, this Court applied a standard similar to the one utilized in Chap | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Shepherd
green
2 sentences1978State v. Shepherd, 94 Idaho 227 , 486 P.2d 82 (1971). 1978State v. Shepherd, 94 Idaho 227 , 486 P.2d 82 (1971). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State v. Crea
neutral
2 sentences1911It is argued, however, that it might prejudice him, and that this court should presume that it did prejudice him; but the rule has been so often and repeatedly announced by this court that prejudicial error must be made to appear affirmatively by the record, that we feél it unnecessary to seriously consider this assignment of error.” Our attention is called to the case of State v. Crea, 10 Ida. 88 , 76 Pac. 1013 , and State v. Barber, 13 Ida. 65 , 88 Pac. 418 , on which counsel for appellant relies as authority for his contention that the statute is mandatory. 1911It is argued, however, that it might prejudice him, and that this court should presume that it did prejudice him; but the rule has been so often and repeatedly announced by this court that prejudicial error must be made to appear affirmatively by the record, that we feél it unnecessary to seriously consider this assignment of error.” Our attention is called to the case of State v. Crea, 10 Ida. 88 , 76 Pac. 1013 , and State v. Barber, 13 Ida. 65 , 88 Pac. 418 , on which counsel for appellant relies as authority for his contention that the statute is mandatory. | 1 | 1911–1911 |
State v. Barber
green
2 sentences1911It is argued, however, that it might prejudice him, and that this court should presume that it did prejudice him; but the rule has been so often and repeatedly announced by this court that prejudicial error must be made to appear affirmatively by the record, that we feél it unnecessary to seriously consider this assignment of error.” Our attention is called to the case of State v. Crea, 10 Ida. 88 , 76 Pac. 1013 , and State v. Barber, 13 Ida. 65 , 88 Pac. 418 , on which counsel for appellant relies as authority for his contention that the statute is mandatory. 1911It is argued, however, that it might prejudice him, and that this court should presume that it did prejudice him; but the rule has been so often and repeatedly announced by this court that prejudicial error must be made to appear affirmatively by the record, that we feél it unnecessary to seriously consider this assignment of error.” Our attention is called to the case of State v. Crea, 10 Ida. 88 , 76 Pac. 1013 , and State v. Barber, 13 Ida. 65 , 88 Pac. 418 , on which counsel for appellant relies as authority for his contention that the statute is mandatory. | 1 | 1911–1911 |
People v. English
neutral
1 sentence1887(People v. English, 52 Cal. 212 ; People v. Aleck, 61 Cal. 137 -139.) The daughter’s statement, made after the killing, and without the presence of the defendant, and related by Trimble, was not admissible; it was mere hearsay. | 1 | 1887–1887 |
People v. Aleck
green
1 sentence1887(People v. English, 52 Cal. 212 ; People v. Aleck, 61 Cal. 137 -139.) The daughter’s statement, made after the killing, and without the presence of the defendant, and related by Trimble, was not admissible; it was mere hearsay. | 1 | 1887–1887 |
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.