identification standard (Idaho) · Go Syfert
← Idaho issues

identification standard in Idaho

5 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2020 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 (1)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Nationgreen
cal · 1980 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989
2 sentences

1989The Nation court further stated, “[w]hether or not the police deem the crime sufficiently important to warrant such an identification analysis, they cannot make the decision for the defendant.” 161 Cal.Rptr. at 303 , 604 P.2d at 1055 (emphasis added).

1989The Nation court further stated, “[w]hether or not the police deem the crime sufficiently important to warrant such an identification analysis, they cannot make the decision for the defendant.” 161 Cal.Rptr. at 303 , 604 P.2d at 1055 (emphasis added).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Mattox v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. green
idaho · 2014
2 sentences

2020We explained that to satisfy Rule 56(c)(4)’s admissibility requirements in a medical malpractice case, an affidavit submitted by a defendant would be required to, “at a minimum, include an identification of the standard of care applicable to the behavior in question.” Id. at 312 , 458 P.3d at 181 (citing Mattox, 157 Idaho at 472 n.1, 337 P.3d at 631 n.1).

2020We explained that to satisfy Rule 56(c)(4)’s admissibility requirements in a medical malpractice case, an affidavit submitted by a defendant would be required to, “at a minimum, include an identification of the standard of care applicable to the behavior in question.” Id. at 312 , 458 P.3d at 181 (citing Mattox, 157 Idaho at 472 n.1, 337 P.3d at 631 n.1).

32019–2020
Eldridge v. West green
idaho · 2020
2 sentences

2020We explained that to satisfy Rule 56(c)(4)’s admissibility requirements in a medical malpractice case, an affidavit submitted by a defendant would be required to, “at a minimum, include an identification of the standard of care applicable to the behavior in question.” Id. at 312 , 458 P.3d at 181 (citing Mattox, 157 Idaho at 472 n.1, 337 P.3d at 631 n.1).

2020We explained that to satisfy Rule 56(c)(4)’s admissibility requirements in a medical malpractice case, an affidavit submitted by a defendant would be required to, “at a minimum, include an identification of the standard of care applicable to the behavior in question.” Id. at 312 , 458 P.3d at 181 (citing Mattox, 157 Idaho at 472 n.1, 337 P.3d at 631 n.1).

12020–2020
Kolender v. Lawson green
scotus · 1983
2 sentences

2010Despite the limiting construction, the Court found that the identification requirement vested the police with virtually unfettered discretion because the statute did not inform the ordinary citizen what constituted “credible and reliable identification.” Id. at 358 , 103 S.Ct. at 1858-59 , 75 L.Ed.2d at 909 .

2010Despite the limiting construction, the Court found that the identification requirement vested the police with virtually unfettered discretion because the statute did not inform the ordinary citizen what constituted “credible and reliable identification.” Id. at 358 , 103 S.Ct. at 1858-59 , 75 L.Ed.2d at 909 .

12010–2010

Statutes the citing opinions construe

ID § Idaho Code § 12-121 (3) ID § Idaho Code § 6-1012 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

NY 44 (1909–2018) MA 32 (1975–2023) NJ 29 (1977–2026) IL 26 (1970–2025) DC 26 (1975–2015) CA 22 (1968–2025) MS 15 (1988–2020) TX 12 (1981–2025) MD 11 (1982–2020) LA 10 (1968–2010) OH 10 (1905–2008) TN 10 (1994–2019) PA 9 (1968–2025) MO 9 (1981–2015) FL 8 (1978–2019) AZ 8 (1970–2026) SC 6 (1992–2013) WA 6 (1952–2021) VA 6 (1975–2026) CT 6 (1983–2018) WV 5 (1980–1987) DE 5 (2016–2023) ID 5 (1989–2020) WI 4 (1979–1996) MN 4 (2013–2015) HI 4 (1971–2014) IN 4 (1922–2025) MI 4 (1933–2020) GA 4 (1975–1994) NC 4 (1980–2021) WY 4 (1971–2025) OR 4 (1977–2009) AK 3 (1980–2006) UT 2 (1981–2001) KY 2 (2005–2010) SD 2 (1992–2025) ND 2 (1973–2021)

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