discussion rule in Idaho

5 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2012 0 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.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Lawyergreen idahoctapp · 2010 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012State v. Hoyle, 140 Idaho 679, 684 , 99 P.3d 1069, 1074 (2004); State v. Lawyer, 150 Idaho 170, 172 , 244 P.3d 1256, 1258 (Ct.App.2010). 2012State v. Hoyle, 140 Idaho 679, 684 , 99 P.3d 1069, 1074 (2004); State v. Lawyer, 150 Idaho 170, 172 , 244 P.3d 1256, 1258 (Ct.App.2010).	1	1
State v. Hoylegreen idaho · 2004 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012State v. Hoyle, 140 Idaho 679, 684 , 99 P.3d 1069, 1074 (2004); State v. Lawyer, 150 Idaho 170, 172 , 244 P.3d 1256, 1258 (Ct.App.2010). 2012State v. Hoyle, 140 Idaho 679, 684 , 99 P.3d 1069, 1074 (2004); State v. Lawyer, 150 Idaho 170, 172 , 244 P.3d 1256, 1258 (Ct.App.2010).	1	1
Estate of Browngreen idaho · 1932 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968 2 sentences 1968Co., Ltd. v. Green, 14 Idaho 249 , 93 P. 954 (1908); Douglas v. Douglas, 4 Idaho 293 , 38 P. 934 (1895); cf. Estate of Brown, 52 Idaho 286, 302 , 15 P.2d 604, 609 (1932); cf., State v. Main, 37 Idaho 449, 461 , 216 P. 731, 734-735 (1923) (right to explain inconsistency overcome by rule excluding prejudicial hearsay); see generally 3 Wig-more, Evidence § 1044 (3d ed. 1940) (inconsistency can always be explained “by relating whatever circumstances would naturally remove it.”) And see the discussion in this rule as applied in the context of the present action, infra part II (beginning at text pre 1968Co., Ltd. v. Green, 14 Idaho 249 , 93 P. 954 (1908); Douglas v. Douglas, 4 Idaho 293 , 38 P. 934 (1895); cf. Estate of Brown, 52 Idaho 286, 302 , 15 P.2d 604, 609 (1932); cf., State v. Main, 37 Idaho 449, 461 , 216 P. 731, 734-735 (1923) (right to explain inconsistency overcome by rule excluding prejudicial hearsay); see generally 3 Wig-more, Evidence § 1044 (3d ed. 1940) (inconsistency can always be explained “by relating whatever circumstances would naturally remove it.”) And see the discussion in this rule as applied in the context of the present action, infra part II (beginning at text pre	1	1
State v. Maingreen idaho · 1923 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968 2 sentences 1968Co., Ltd. v. Green, 14 Idaho 249 , 93 P. 954 (1908); Douglas v. Douglas, 4 Idaho 293 , 38 P. 934 (1895); cf. Estate of Brown, 52 Idaho 286, 302 , 15 P.2d 604, 609 (1932); cf., State v. Main, 37 Idaho 449, 461 , 216 P. 731, 734-735 (1923) (right to explain inconsistency overcome by rule excluding prejudicial hearsay); see generally 3 Wig-more, Evidence § 1044 (3d ed. 1940) (inconsistency can always be explained “by relating whatever circumstances would naturally remove it.”) And see the discussion in this rule as applied in the context of the present action, infra part II (beginning at text pre 1968Co., Ltd. v. Green, 14 Idaho 249 , 93 P. 954 (1908); Douglas v. Douglas, 4 Idaho 293 , 38 P. 934 (1895); cf. Estate of Brown, 52 Idaho 286, 302 , 15 P.2d 604, 609 (1932); cf., State v. Main, 37 Idaho 449, 461 , 216 P. 731, 734-735 (1923) (right to explain inconsistency overcome by rule excluding prejudicial hearsay); see generally 3 Wig-more, Evidence § 1044 (3d ed. 1940) (inconsistency can always be explained “by relating whatever circumstances would naturally remove it.”) And see the discussion in this rule as applied in the context of the present action, infra part II (beginning at text pre	1	1
State v. Dickensgreen wash · 1965 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968 2 sentences 1968(U.S.) 412, 439, 9 L.Ed. 475 , 486 (1836) (opinion by Story, J.); Waldrep v. Southern Railway Company, 266 Ala. 652 , 98 So.2d 614 (1957); Wilson v. Jeffrey, 328 Mass. 192 , 102 N.E.2d 426 (1951); Crawford v. Nilan, 289 N.Y. 444 , 46 N.E.2d 512 (1943); Shellock v. Klempay Brothers, 167 Ohio St. 279 , 148 N.E.2d 57 , 75 A.L.R.2d 900 , 4 Ohio Ops. 2d 318 (1958); State v. Dickens, 66 Wash.2d 58 , 401 P.2d 321, 324-325 (1965); Annot., Admissibility Eor- Purpose Of Supporting Impeached Witness Of Prior Statements By Him Consistent With His Testimony, 75 A.L.B.2d 909, § 15, pp. 930-933 (1961) ; IV W 1968(U.S.) 412, 439, 9 L.Ed. 475 , 486 (1836) (opinion by Story, J.); Waldrep v. Southern Railway Company, 266 Ala. 652 , 98 So.2d 614 (1957); Wilson v. Jeffrey, 328 Mass. 192 , 102 N.E.2d 426 (1951); Crawford v. Nilan, 289 N.Y. 444 , 46 N.E.2d 512 (1943); Shellock v. Klempay Brothers, 167 Ohio St. 279 , 148 N.E.2d 57 , 75 A.L.R.2d 900 , 4 Ohio Ops. 2d 318 (1958); State v. Dickens, 66 Wash.2d 58 , 401 P.2d 321, 324-325 (1965); Annot., Admissibility Eor- Purpose Of Supporting Impeached Witness Of Prior Statements By Him Consistent With His Testimony, 75 A.L.B.2d 909, § 15, pp. 930-933 (1961) ; IV W	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
Johnson v. Newport green idaho · 1998 2 sentences 2007Johnson 131 Idaho at 523 , 960 P.2d at 744 . 2007Johnson 131 Idaho at 523 , 960 P.2d at 744 .	1	2007–2007
Clarke v. Slate v. R. Co. neutral · 1890 2 sentences 1971Co., 136 Pa. 408 , 20 A. 562 (1890) for a discussion of this rule. 1971Co., 136 Pa. 408 , 20 A. 562 (1890) for a discussion of this rule.	1	1971–1971
Waldrep v. Southern Railway Company neutral ala · 1957 2 sentences 1968(U.S.) 412, 439, 9 L.Ed. 475 , 486 (1836) (opinion by Story, J.); Waldrep v. Southern Railway Company, 266 Ala. 652 , 98 So.2d 614 (1957); Wilson v. Jeffrey, 328 Mass. 192 , 102 N.E.2d 426 (1951); Crawford v. Nilan, 289 N.Y. 444 , 46 N.E.2d 512 (1943); Shellock v. Klempay Brothers, 167 Ohio St. 279 , 148 N.E.2d 57 , 75 A.L.R.2d 900 , 4 Ohio Ops. 2d 318 (1958); State v. Dickens, 66 Wash.2d 58 , 401 P.2d 321, 324-325 (1965); Annot., Admissibility Eor- Purpose Of Supporting Impeached Witness Of Prior Statements By Him Consistent With His Testimony, 75 A.L.B.2d 909, § 15, pp. 930-933 (1961) ; IV W 1968(U.S.) 412, 439, 9 L.Ed. 475 , 486 (1836) (opinion by Story, J.); Waldrep v. Southern Railway Company, 266 Ala. 652 , 98 So.2d 614 (1957); Wilson v. Jeffrey, 328 Mass. 192 , 102 N.E.2d 426 (1951); Crawford v. Nilan, 289 N.Y. 444 , 46 N.E.2d 512 (1943); Shellock v. Klempay Brothers, 167 Ohio St. 279 , 148 N.E.2d 57 , 75 A.L.R.2d 900 , 4 Ohio Ops. 2d 318 (1958); State v. Dickens, 66 Wash.2d 58 , 401 P.2d 321, 324-325 (1965); Annot., Admissibility Eor- Purpose Of Supporting Impeached Witness Of Prior Statements By Him Consistent With His Testimony, 75 A.L.B.2d 909, § 15, pp. 930-933 (1961) ; IV W	1	1968–1968
Douglas v. Douglas neutral · 1895 2 sentences 1968Co., Ltd. v. Green, 14 Idaho 249 , 93 P. 954 (1908); Douglas v. Douglas, 4 Idaho 293 , 38 P. 934 (1895); cf. Estate of Brown, 52 Idaho 286, 302 , 15 P.2d 604, 609 (1932); cf., State v. Main, 37 Idaho 449, 461 , 216 P. 731, 734-735 (1923) (right to explain inconsistency overcome by rule excluding prejudicial hearsay); see generally 3 Wig-more, Evidence § 1044 (3d ed. 1940) (inconsistency can always be explained “by relating whatever circumstances would naturally remove it.”) And see the discussion in this rule as applied in the context of the present action, infra part II (beginning at text pre 1968Co., Ltd. v. Green, 14 Idaho 249 , 93 P. 954 (1908); Douglas v. Douglas, 4 Idaho 293 , 38 P. 934 (1895); cf. Estate of Brown, 52 Idaho 286, 302 , 15 P.2d 604, 609 (1932); cf., State v. Main, 37 Idaho 449, 461 , 216 P. 731, 734-735 (1923) (right to explain inconsistency overcome by rule excluding prejudicial hearsay); see generally 3 Wig-more, Evidence § 1044 (3d ed. 1940) (inconsistency can always be explained “by relating whatever circumstances would naturally remove it.”) And see the discussion in this rule as applied in the context of the present action, infra part II (beginning at text pre	1	1968–1968
Idaho Placer Mining Co. v. Green neutral idaho · 1908 2 sentences 1968Co., Ltd. v. Green, 14 Idaho 249 , 93 P. 954 (1908); Douglas v. Douglas, 4 Idaho 293 , 38 P. 934 (1895); cf. Estate of Brown, 52 Idaho 286, 302 , 15 P.2d 604, 609 (1932); cf., State v. Main, 37 Idaho 449, 461 , 216 P. 731, 734-735 (1923) (right to explain inconsistency overcome by rule excluding prejudicial hearsay); see generally 3 Wig-more, Evidence § 1044 (3d ed. 1940) (inconsistency can always be explained “by relating whatever circumstances would naturally remove it.”) And see the discussion in this rule as applied in the context of the present action, infra part II (beginning at text pre 1968Co., Ltd. v. Green, 14 Idaho 249 , 93 P. 954 (1908); Douglas v. Douglas, 4 Idaho 293 , 38 P. 934 (1895); cf. Estate of Brown, 52 Idaho 286, 302 , 15 P.2d 604, 609 (1932); cf., State v. Main, 37 Idaho 449, 461 , 216 P. 731, 734-735 (1923) (right to explain inconsistency overcome by rule excluding prejudicial hearsay); see generally 3 Wig-more, Evidence § 1044 (3d ed. 1940) (inconsistency can always be explained “by relating whatever circumstances would naturally remove it.”) And see the discussion in this rule as applied in the context of the present action, infra part II (beginning at text pre	1	1968–1968
Crawford v. Nilan green ny · 1943 2 sentences 1968(U.S.) 412, 439, 9 L.Ed. 475 , 486 (1836) (opinion by Story, J.); Waldrep v. Southern Railway Company, 266 Ala. 652 , 98 So.2d 614 (1957); Wilson v. Jeffrey, 328 Mass. 192 , 102 N.E.2d 426 (1951); Crawford v. Nilan, 289 N.Y. 444 , 46 N.E.2d 512 (1943); Shellock v. Klempay Brothers, 167 Ohio St. 279 , 148 N.E.2d 57 , 75 A.L.R.2d 900 , 4 Ohio Ops. 2d 318 (1958); State v. Dickens, 66 Wash.2d 58 , 401 P.2d 321, 324-325 (1965); Annot., Admissibility Eor- Purpose Of Supporting Impeached Witness Of Prior Statements By Him Consistent With His Testimony, 75 A.L.B.2d 909, § 15, pp. 930-933 (1961) ; IV W 1968(U.S.) 412, 439, 9 L.Ed. 475 , 486 (1836) (opinion by Story, J.); Waldrep v. Southern Railway Company, 266 Ala. 652 , 98 So.2d 614 (1957); Wilson v. Jeffrey, 328 Mass. 192 , 102 N.E.2d 426 (1951); Crawford v. Nilan, 289 N.Y. 444 , 46 N.E.2d 512 (1943); Shellock v. Klempay Brothers, 167 Ohio St. 279 , 148 N.E.2d 57 , 75 A.L.R.2d 900 , 4 Ohio Ops. 2d 318 (1958); State v. Dickens, 66 Wash.2d 58 , 401 P.2d 321, 324-325 (1965); Annot., Admissibility Eor- Purpose Of Supporting Impeached Witness Of Prior Statements By Him Consistent With His Testimony, 75 A.L.B.2d 909, § 15, pp. 930-933 (1961) ; IV W	1	1968–1968
Miranda v. Arizona green scotus · 1966 2 sentences 1968For the discussion of the warnings set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States, see the Miranda case, 384 U.S. 436, 468-472 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 . 7 . 1968For the discussion of the warnings set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States, see the Miranda case, 384 U.S. 436, 468-472 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 . 7 .	1	1968–1968
Wilson v. Jeffrey green mass · 1951 2 sentences 1968(U.S.) 412, 439, 9 L.Ed. 475 , 486 (1836) (opinion by Story, J.); Waldrep v. Southern Railway Company, 266 Ala. 652 , 98 So.2d 614 (1957); Wilson v. Jeffrey, 328 Mass. 192 , 102 N.E.2d 426 (1951); Crawford v. Nilan, 289 N.Y. 444 , 46 N.E.2d 512 (1943); Shellock v. Klempay Brothers, 167 Ohio St. 279 , 148 N.E.2d 57 , 75 A.L.R.2d 900 , 4 Ohio Ops. 2d 318 (1958); State v. Dickens, 66 Wash.2d 58 , 401 P.2d 321, 324-325 (1965); Annot., Admissibility Eor- Purpose Of Supporting Impeached Witness Of Prior Statements By Him Consistent With His Testimony, 75 A.L.B.2d 909, § 15, pp. 930-933 (1961) ; IV W 1968(U.S.) 412, 439, 9 L.Ed. 475 , 486 (1836) (opinion by Story, J.); Waldrep v. Southern Railway Company, 266 Ala. 652 , 98 So.2d 614 (1957); Wilson v. Jeffrey, 328 Mass. 192 , 102 N.E.2d 426 (1951); Crawford v. Nilan, 289 N.Y. 444 , 46 N.E.2d 512 (1943); Shellock v. Klempay Brothers, 167 Ohio St. 279 , 148 N.E.2d 57 , 75 A.L.R.2d 900 , 4 Ohio Ops. 2d 318 (1958); State v. Dickens, 66 Wash.2d 58 , 401 P.2d 321, 324-325 (1965); Annot., Admissibility Eor- Purpose Of Supporting Impeached Witness Of Prior Statements By Him Consistent With His Testimony, 75 A.L.B.2d 909, § 15, pp. 930-933 (1961) ; IV W	1	1968–1968

Where else courts name it

CA 226 (1907–2026) LA 168 (1941–2025) TX 156 (1905–2021) PA 112 (1911–2026) NY 81 (1891–2026) TN 77 (1904–2026) IL 59 (1872–2024) CT 55 (1857–2021) MA 55 (1874–2024) MO 47 (1905–2020) FL 43 (1914–2019) AL 40 (1894–2024) MD 38 (1939–2025) WV 36 (1935–2020) IN 36 (1867–2019) WI 32 (1891–2025) KS 28 (1904–2024) GA 27 (1895–2018) MI 26 (1889–2022) WA 23 (1910–2024) OK 21 (1908–2009) NC 21 (1895–2022) OH 21 (1906–2026) MT 21 (1919–2022) KY 20 (1917–2022) DE 20 (1972–2025) RI 19 (1968–2022) ME 16 (1947–2024) SC 16 (1929–2022) AZ 16 (1916–2020) OR 15 (1922–2025) MS 15 (1956–2020) NE 15 (1884–2021) VA 14 (1927–2015) AR 14 (1941–2026) NJ 14 (1891–2019) WY 14 (1948–1999) NM 12 (1950–2025) AK 11 (1964–2001) UT 10 (1958–2021) IA 9 (1962–2025) DC 9 (1956–2016) MN 8 (1900–2006) CO 8 (1952–2008) NV 7 (1991–2009) VT 7 (1967–2026) NH 5 (1986–2021) ID 5 (1968–2012) HI 4 (1982–2017) ND 4 (1950–1991) SD 3 (1979–2010) VI 2 (1988–2010)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check