5 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2025 1 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. Stormgreen2 sentences2010Id. at 233 , 846 P.2d at 235 (citations omitted). 2010Id. at 233 , 846 P.2d at 235 (citations omitted). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bordenkircher v. Hayes
green
2 sentences1994Id. at 233 , 846 P.2d at 235 , citing Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363 , 98 S.Ct. 663, 667-68 , 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978). *400 Storm’s post-conviction application sought relief from a guilty plea which he claimed was rendered involuntary by the prosecutor’s threat of filing additional legitimate habitual offender charges. 1994Id. at 233 , 846 P.2d at 235 , citing Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363 , 98 S.Ct. 663, 667-68 , 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978). *400 Storm’s post-conviction application sought relief from a guilty plea which he claimed was rendered involuntary by the prosecutor’s threat of filing additional legitimate habitual offender charges. | 2 | 1993–1994 |
State v. Miller
green
1 sentence2025Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
North Carolina v. Alford
green
2 sentences2009NOTES [1] See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). [2] (b) When a court is satisfied, on the basis of the application, the answer or motion, and the record, that the applicant is not entitled to post-conviction relief and no purpose would be served by any further proceedings, it may indicate to the parties its intention to dismiss the application and its reasons for so doing. 2009NOTES [1] See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). [2] (b) When a court is satisfied, on the basis of the application, the answer or motion, and the record, that the applicant is not entitled to post-conviction relief and no purpose would be served by any further proceedings, it may indicate to the parties its intention to dismiss the application and its reasons for so doing. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.