5 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Pylicangreen2 sentences2026See Pylican, 167 Idaho at 755 , 477 P.3d at 190 (holding that a defendant cannot claim that a stop was unconstitutionally prolonged by the State when any delay was a consequence of the defendant’s own conduct). 2026See Pylican, 167 Idaho at 755 , 477 P.3d at 190 (holding that a defendant cannot claim that a stop was unconstitutionally prolonged by the State when any delay was a consequence of the defendant’s own conduct). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Dorseygreen2 sentences2022See State v. Wisdom, 161 Idaho 916, 919-20 , 393 P.3d 576, 579-80 (2017) (holding because defendant did not raise claim whether Idaho Medicaid State Operations was eligible for restitution, he could not raise this argument on appeal); see also State v. Dorsey, 126 Idaho 659, 661-62 , 889 P.2d 93, 95-96 (Ct. App. 1995) (holding because defendant only disputed the timeliness of restitution claim below, he could not raise challenge to restitution order on different legal ground on appeal). 3 The record in this case illustrates why an appellate court reviews only challenges to the quantum of evide 2022See State v. Wisdom, 161 Idaho 916, 919-20 , 393 P.3d 576, 579-80 (2017) (holding because defendant did not raise claim whether Idaho Medicaid State Operations was eligible for restitution, he could not raise this argument on appeal); see also State v. Dorsey, 126 Idaho 659, 661-62 , 889 P.2d 93, 95-96 (Ct. App. 1995) (holding because defendant only disputed the timeliness of restitution claim below, he could not raise challenge to restitution order on different legal ground on appeal). 3 The record in this case illustrates why an appellate court reviews only challenges to the quantum of evide | 1 | 1 |
State v. Christina Rose Wisdomgreen2 sentences2022See State v. Wisdom, 161 Idaho 916, 919-20 , 393 P.3d 576, 579-80 (2017) (holding because defendant did not raise claim whether Idaho Medicaid State Operations was eligible for restitution, he could not raise this argument on appeal); see also State v. Dorsey, 126 Idaho 659, 661-62 , 889 P.2d 93, 95-96 (Ct. App. 1995) (holding because defendant only disputed the timeliness of restitution claim below, he could not raise challenge to restitution order on different legal ground on appeal). 3 The record in this case illustrates why an appellate court reviews only challenges to the quantum of evide 2022See State v. Wisdom, 161 Idaho 916, 919-20 , 393 P.3d 576, 579-80 (2017) (holding because defendant did not raise claim whether Idaho Medicaid State Operations was eligible for restitution, he could not raise this argument on appeal); see also State v. Dorsey, 126 Idaho 659, 661-62 , 889 P.2d 93, 95-96 (Ct. App. 1995) (holding because defendant only disputed the timeliness of restitution claim below, he could not raise challenge to restitution order on different legal ground on appeal). 3 The record in this case illustrates why an appellate court reviews only challenges to the quantum of evide | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jurkogreen2 sentences2019The proposed instruction was based on State v. Jurko, 42 Idaho 319, 330 , 245 P. 685, 688 (1926). 2019The proposed instruction was based on State v. Jurko, 42 Idaho 319, 330 , 245 P. 685, 688 (1926). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences2008Furthermore, on appeal a defendant cannot claim dissatisfaction with the jury panel when the defendant “failed to exhaust the means available to her to exclude unacceptable jurors____” See State v. Mitchell, 104 Idaho 493, 501 , 660 P.2d 1336, 1344 (1983). 2008Furthermore, on appeal a defendant cannot claim dissatisfaction with the jury panel when the defendant “failed to exhaust the means available to her to exclude unacceptable jurors____” See State v. Mitchell, 104 Idaho 493, 501 , 660 P.2d 1336, 1344 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.