duration violation in Idaho

5 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2000 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 (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Mallery v. Lewisgreen idaho · 1983 · cited in 3 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1986–1989 2 sentences 1989Gawron v. Roberts, 113 Idaho 330 , 743 P.2d 983 (Ct.App.1987); Mattery v. Lewis, 106 Idaho 227, 234 , 678 P.2d 19, 26 (1983). 1989Gawron v. Roberts, 113 Idaho 330 , 743 P.2d 983 (Ct.App.1987); Mattery v. Lewis, 106 Idaho 227, 234 , 678 P.2d 19, 26 (1983).	3	3
Russell v. Fortneygreen idaho · 1986 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1987–2000 2 sentences 1987However, one of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine has been succinctly stated as follows: If the alleged constitutional violation is likely to be repeated, and the duration of the violation to any one individual’s rights is predictably less than the time ordinarily required to obtain a hearing on the issue, and the alleged violation is of strong public interest, then the mootness doctrine will not apply. [Citations omitted.] Russell v. Fortney, 111 Idaho 179, 180 , 722 P.2d 488, 489 (1986) (opinion by Huntley, J., dissenting from order denying petition for review of Court of Appeals’ deci 1987However, one of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine has been succinctly stated as follows: If the alleged constitutional violation is likely to be repeated, and the duration of the violation to any one individual’s rights is predictably less than the time ordinarily required to obtain a hearing on the issue, and the alleged violation is of strong public interest, then the mootness doctrine will not apply. [Citations omitted.] Russell v. Fortney, 111 Idaho 179, 180 , 722 P.2d 488, 489 (1986) (opinion by Huntley, J., dissenting from order denying petition for review of Court of Appeals’ deci	2	2
Wickham v. Fishergreen utah · 1981 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 1 sentence 1986Rowe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 , 93 S.Ct. 705 , 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973); Mallery v. Lewis, 106 Idaho 227, 234 , 678 P.2d 19, 26 (1983); Robinson v. Bodily, 97 Idaho 199 , 541 P.2d 623 (1975); Nelson v. Marshall, 94 Idaho 726 , 497 P.2d 47 (1972); Dick v. Geist, 107 Idaho 931 , 693 P.2d 1133 (Ct.App.1985); Wickham v. Fisher, 629 P.2d 896, 899 (Utah 1981).	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 (6)

Case	Cited	Years
Gawron v. Roberts green idahoctapp · 1987 2 sentences 2000Gawron v. Roberts, 113 Idaho at 332 , 743 P.2d at 985 (quoting Russell v. Fortney, 111 Idaho 179, 180 , 722 P.2d 488, 489 (1986), Huntley, J., dissenting from order denying petition for review). 2000Gawron v. Roberts, 113 Idaho at 332 , 743 P.2d at 985 (quoting Russell v. Fortney, 111 Idaho 179, 180 , 722 P.2d 488, 489 (1986), Huntley, J., dissenting from order denying petition for review).	3	1989–2000
Russell v. Fortney green idahoctapp · 1986 2 sentences 1987However, one of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine has been succinctly stated as follows: If the alleged constitutional violation is likely to be repeated, and the duration of the violation to any one individual’s rights is predictably less than the time ordinarily required to obtain a hearing on the issue, and the alleged violation is of strong public interest, then the mootness doctrine will not apply. [Citations omitted.] Russell v. Fortney, 111 Idaho 179, 180 , 722 P.2d 488, 489 (1986) (opinion by Huntley, J., dissenting from order denying petition for review of Court of Appeals’ deci 1987However, one of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine has been succinctly stated as follows: If the alleged constitutional violation is likely to be repeated, and the duration of the violation to any one individual’s rights is predictably less than the time ordinarily required to obtain a hearing on the issue, and the alleged violation is of strong public interest, then the mootness doctrine will not apply. [Citations omitted.] Russell v. Fortney, 111 Idaho 179, 180 , 722 P.2d 488, 489 (1986) (opinion by Huntley, J., dissenting from order denying petition for review of Court of Appeals’ deci	1	1987–1987
Robinson v. Bodily green idaho · 1975 2 sentences 1986Rowe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 , 93 S.Ct. 705 , 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973); Mallery v. Lewis, 106 Idaho 227, 234 , 678 P.2d 19, 26 (1983); Robinson v. Bodily, 97 Idaho 199 , 541 P.2d 623 (1975); Nelson v. Marshall, 94 Idaho 726 , 497 P.2d 47 (1972); Dick v. Geist, 107 Idaho 931 , 693 P.2d 1133 (Ct.App.1985); Wickham v. Fisher, 629 P.2d 896, 899 (Utah 1981). 1986Rowe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 , 93 S.Ct. 705 , 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973); Mallery v. Lewis, 106 Idaho 227, 234 , 678 P.2d 19, 26 (1983); Robinson v. Bodily, 97 Idaho 199 , 541 P.2d 623 (1975); Nelson v. Marshall, 94 Idaho 726 , 497 P.2d 47 (1972); Dick v. Geist, 107 Idaho 931 , 693 P.2d 1133 (Ct.App.1985); Wickham v. Fisher, 629 P.2d 896, 899 (Utah 1981).	1	1986–1986
Dick v. Geist green idahoctapp · 1985 2 sentences 1986Rowe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 , 93 S.Ct. 705 , 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973); Mallery v. Lewis, 106 Idaho 227, 234 , 678 P.2d 19, 26 (1983); Robinson v. Bodily, 97 Idaho 199 , 541 P.2d 623 (1975); Nelson v. Marshall, 94 Idaho 726 , 497 P.2d 47 (1972); Dick v. Geist, 107 Idaho 931 , 693 P.2d 1133 (Ct.App.1985); Wickham v. Fisher, 629 P.2d 896, 899 (Utah 1981). 1986Rowe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 , 93 S.Ct. 705 , 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973); Mallery v. Lewis, 106 Idaho 227, 234 , 678 P.2d 19, 26 (1983); Robinson v. Bodily, 97 Idaho 199 , 541 P.2d 623 (1975); Nelson v. Marshall, 94 Idaho 726 , 497 P.2d 47 (1972); Dick v. Geist, 107 Idaho 931 , 693 P.2d 1133 (Ct.App.1985); Wickham v. Fisher, 629 P.2d 896, 899 (Utah 1981).	1	1986–1986
Roe v. Wade red scotus · 1973 2 sentences 1986Rowe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 , 93 S.Ct. 705 , 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973); Mallery v. Lewis, 106 Idaho 227, 234 , 678 P.2d 19, 26 (1983); Robinson v. Bodily, 97 Idaho 199 , 541 P.2d 623 (1975); Nelson v. Marshall, 94 Idaho 726 , 497 P.2d 47 (1972); Dick v. Geist, 107 Idaho 931 , 693 P.2d 1133 (Ct.App.1985); Wickham v. Fisher, 629 P.2d 896, 899 (Utah 1981). 1986Rowe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 , 93 S.Ct. 705 , 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973); Mallery v. Lewis, 106 Idaho 227, 234 , 678 P.2d 19, 26 (1983); Robinson v. Bodily, 97 Idaho 199 , 541 P.2d 623 (1975); Nelson v. Marshall, 94 Idaho 726 , 497 P.2d 47 (1972); Dick v. Geist, 107 Idaho 931 , 693 P.2d 1133 (Ct.App.1985); Wickham v. Fisher, 629 P.2d 896, 899 (Utah 1981).	1	1986–1986
Nelson v. Marshall green idaho · 1972 2 sentences 1986Rowe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 , 93 S.Ct. 705 , 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973); Mallery v. Lewis, 106 Idaho 227, 234 , 678 P.2d 19, 26 (1983); Robinson v. Bodily, 97 Idaho 199 , 541 P.2d 623 (1975); Nelson v. Marshall, 94 Idaho 726 , 497 P.2d 47 (1972); Dick v. Geist, 107 Idaho 931 , 693 P.2d 1133 (Ct.App.1985); Wickham v. Fisher, 629 P.2d 896, 899 (Utah 1981). 1986Rowe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 , 93 S.Ct. 705 , 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973); Mallery v. Lewis, 106 Idaho 227, 234 , 678 P.2d 19, 26 (1983); Robinson v. Bodily, 97 Idaho 199 , 541 P.2d 623 (1975); Nelson v. Marshall, 94 Idaho 726 , 497 P.2d 47 (1972); Dick v. Geist, 107 Idaho 931 , 693 P.2d 1133 (Ct.App.1985); Wickham v. Fisher, 629 P.2d 896, 899 (Utah 1981).	1	1986–1986

Where else courts name it

CA 12 (1954–2026) PA 11 (1955–2024) WA 9 (1977–2023) TX 7 (1997–2026) NM 5 (2009–2013) NY 5 (1981–2024) ID 5 (1986–2000) AZ 5 (1995–2023) IN 4 (1991–2025) OH 4 (1998–2022) MD 3 (1973–2013) MI 3 (2004–2012) DC 3 (1999–2020) MO 3 (1969–1994) IA 3 (2017–2020) TN 2 (2001–2002) CO 2 (2005–2006) ME 2 (1981–2016) RI 2 (2007–2022) DE 2 (1966–1966) LA 2 (2012–2017) MN 2 (1936–2012)

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