5 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brady v. Marylandgreen2 sentences2021We reverse, however, the court’s summary dismissal of Baker’s Brady claim and remand this case for an evidentiary hearing. 1 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (holding prosecution’s suppression of material evidence violates due process). 1 I. 2021We reverse, however, the court’s summary dismissal of Baker’s Brady claim and remand this case for an evidentiary hearing. 1 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (holding prosecution’s suppression of material evidence violates due process). 1 I. | 2 | 2 |
Shillinger v. Haworthgreen1 sentence2018Most notably, remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the government could establish an independent origin was the precise remedy the Ninth Circuit settled upon in Danielson. 325 F.3d at 1074 ; see also Schillinger v. Haworth, 70 F.3d 1132 , 1142–43 (10th Cir. 1995) (remanding for “factfinding procedures to determine the extent of the intrusion as well as the proper remedy”). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. William Dennis Danielson v. United States v. William Dennis Danielsongreen2 sentences2018Most notably, remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the government could establish an independent origin was the precise remedy the Ninth Circuit settled upon in Danielson. 325 F.3d at 1074 ; see also Schillinger v. Haworth, 70 F.3d 1132 , 1142–43 (10th Cir. 1995) (remanding for “factfinding procedures to determine the extent of the intrusion as well as the proper remedy”). 2018In both Stuart and Danielson, remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing could be tied to a previously denied post-trial filing of the defendant. 118 Idaho at 933 , 801 P.2d at 1284 (petition for post-conviction relief); 325 F.3d at 1065 (post-trial motion for a new trial). | 1 | 1 |
Stuart v. Stategreen2 sentences2018In both Stuart and Danielson, remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing could be tied to a previously denied post-trial filing of the defendant. 118 Idaho at 933 , 801 P.2d at 1284 (petition for post-conviction relief); 325 F.3d at 1065 (post-trial motion for a new trial). 2018In both Stuart and Danielson, remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing could be tied to a previously denied post-trial filing of the defendant. 118 Idaho at 933 , 801 P.2d at 1284 (petition for post-conviction relief); 325 F.3d at 1065 (post-trial motion for a new trial). | 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. Cobb
green
2 sentences1988Cf. State v. Cobb, 100 Idaho 116 , 594 P.2d 154 (1979) (overturning summary dismissal of post-conviction relief application and remanding for evidentiary hearing on allegation that plea was tainted by influence of drugs). 1988Cf. State v. Cobb, 100 Idaho 116 , 594 P.2d 154 (1979) (overturning summary dismissal of post-conviction relief application and remanding for evidentiary hearing on allegation that plea was tainted by influence of drugs). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Samuels v. United States
green
1 sentence1986Applying the rule in Samuels v. United States, 435 A.2d 392 (D.C.App.1981) and Hines v. United States, 237 A.2d 827 (D.C.App.1968), we instructed the district court as follows: Should the court determine that Flores’ counsel failed to file an appeal, after Flores instructed him to do so, and such failure deprived Flores of his opportunity to appeal, then the proper remedy is for the court, by order, to vacate and re-enter the judgment of conviction so that Flores might perfect a timely appeal. 104 Idaho at 195 , 657 P.2d at 492 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Flores v. State
green
2 sentences1986Applying the rule in Samuels v. United States, 435 A.2d 392 (D.C.App.1981) and Hines v. United States, 237 A.2d 827 (D.C.App.1968), we instructed the district court as follows: Should the court determine that Flores’ counsel failed to file an appeal, after Flores instructed him to do so, and such failure deprived Flores of his opportunity to appeal, then the proper remedy is for the court, by order, to vacate and re-enter the judgment of conviction so that Flores might perfect a timely appeal. 104 Idaho at 195 , 657 P.2d at 492 . 1986Applying the rule in Samuels v. United States, 435 A.2d 392 (D.C.App.1981) and Hines v. United States, 237 A.2d 827 (D.C.App.1968), we instructed the district court as follows: Should the court determine that Flores’ counsel failed to file an appeal, after Flores instructed him to do so, and such failure deprived Flores of his opportunity to appeal, then the proper remedy is for the court, by order, to vacate and re-enter the judgment of conviction so that Flores might perfect a timely appeal. 104 Idaho at 195 , 657 P.2d at 492 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Hines v. United States
green
1 sentence1986Applying the rule in Samuels v. United States, 435 A.2d 392 (D.C.App.1981) and Hines v. United States, 237 A.2d 827 (D.C.App.1968), we instructed the district court as follows: Should the court determine that Flores’ counsel failed to file an appeal, after Flores instructed him to do so, and such failure deprived Flores of his opportunity to appeal, then the proper remedy is for the court, by order, to vacate and re-enter the judgment of conviction so that Flores might perfect a timely appeal. 104 Idaho at 195 , 657 P.2d at 492 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.