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.
5 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2023 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Medina v. Californiagreen2 sentences2023“Substantial deference” is given to the “legislative judgment” underlying a state’s criminal procedural rule “because the States have considerable expertise in matters of criminal procedure and the criminal process is grounded in centuries of common-law tradition.” Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 445-46 (1992). 2023“Substantial deference” is given to the “legislative judgment” underlying a state’s criminal procedural rule “because the States have considerable expertise in matters of criminal procedure and the criminal process is grounded in centuries of common-law tradition.” Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 445-46 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
Speiser v. Randallgreen1 sentence2023Generally, a state’s criminal procedural rule is “not subject to proscription under the Due Process Clause unless ‘it offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.’” Id. (quoting Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 523 (1958)). | 1 | 1 |
Patterson v. New Yorkgreen2 sentences2023Generally, a state’s criminal procedural rule is “not subject to proscription under the Due Process Clause unless ‘it offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.’” Id. (quoting Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 523 (1958)). 2023See Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 201-02 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Teague v. Lane
red
2 sentences2023We explicitly adopted the retroactivity test from Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), for criminal cases on collateral review. 2023We explicitly adopted the retroactivity test from Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), for criminal cases on collateral review. | 4 | 2015–2023 |
Rhoades v. State
green
2 sentences2023Teague, 489 U.S. at 310 , 109 S.Ct. at 1075 , 103 L.Ed.2d at 355–56; Rhoades, 149 Idaho at 139 , 233 P.3d at 70 . 2023Teague, 489 U.S. at 310 , 109 S.Ct. at 1075 , 103 L.Ed.2d at 355–56; Rhoades, 149 Idaho at 139 , 233 P.3d at 70 . | 4 | 2015–2023 |
State v. Dameniel Preston Owens
green
2 sentences2023The Court set out the standard for determining retroactive versus prospective application of a new criminal procedural rule in State v. Owens, 158 Idaho 1 , 343 P.3d 30 (2015), a case that reversed longstanding precedent concerning the calculation of credit for time served under Idaho Code section 18-309: Finally, we must determine whether we will apply this decision retroactively. 2023The Court set out the standard for determining retroactive versus prospective application of a new criminal procedural rule in State v. Owens, 158 Idaho 1 , 343 P.3d 30 (2015), a case that reversed longstanding precedent concerning the calculation of credit for time served under Idaho Code section 18-309: Finally, we must determine whether we will apply this decision retroactively. | 3 | 2023–2023 |
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.