Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bradford v. Stategreen2 sentences1997See Bradford v. State, 124 Idaho 788, 791 , 864 P.2d 626, 629 (Ct.App.1993) (noting that there could be procedural due process violations inherent in the practice of placing the inmate in administrative segregation pending the rebuttal hearing, but holding that such infirmities could be cured by the appointment of a staff representative to contact witnesses). 1997See Bradford v. State, 124 Idaho 788, 791 , 864 P.2d 626, 629 (Ct.App.1993) (noting that there could be procedural due process violations inherent in the practice of placing the inmate in administrative segregation pending the rebuttal hearing, but holding that such infirmities could be cured by the appointment of a staff representative to contact witnesses). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Radabaugh
green
2 sentences2010However, in State v. Radabaugh, this Court did not expressly condition the admission of state of mind evidence on it being offered to rebut a defense theory. 93 Idaho 727 , 471 P.2d 582 (1970). 2010However, in State v. Radabaugh, this Court did not expressly condition the admission of state of mind evidence on it being offered to rebut a defense theory. 93 Idaho 727 , 471 P.2d 582 (1970). | 2 | 2010–2010 |
In re the Termination of the Parental Rights of DOE (2014-09)
green
2 sentences2021According to Father, these subsections create “two distinct classifications of causes of action” and “under subsection (1), [Mother] bears the burden to compelling [sic] show why this matter should not just be handled in a custody case but should be addressed in a termination action.” In support of this assertion, Father cites In re Doe (2014-09), 157 Idaho 14 , 333 P.3d 125 (2014). 2021According to Father, these subsections create “two distinct classifications of causes of action” and “under subsection (1), [Mother] bears the burden to compelling [sic] show why this matter should not just be handled in a custody case but should be addressed in a termination action.” In support of this assertion, Father cites In re Doe (2014-09), 157 Idaho 14 , 333 P.3d 125 (2014). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Lawny Lamar Browning v. Richard A. Vernon, Director Ron McKinsey
green
1 sentence1995It is unclear from the language of Browning whether the Ninth Circuit meant to include attorney contact when it stated that “a reasonable official would know that an inmate would not be able to adequately prepare for the rebuttal hearing or call witnesses at the hearing after being placed in segregation with no outside contact.” 44 F.3d at 823 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Schmidt v. State
green
1 sentence1995The district court, relying on this Court’s opinion in Schmidt v. State, 108 Idaho 340 , 647 P.2d 796 (Ct.App.1982), stated that “a prisoner is not entitled to counsel at a classification (jurisdictional review) hearing.” In Schmidt, we addressed whether an inmate was entitled to representation during the actual rebuttal hearing. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Hanslovan
green
2 sentences1995Further, in State v. Hanslovan, 116 Idaho 266 , 775 P.2d 158 (Ct.App.1989), we determined that denial of access to an inmate law clerk to assist in preparation for the rebuttal hearing was not a denial of due process. 1995Further, in State v. Hanslovan, 116 Idaho 266 , 775 P.2d 158 (Ct.App.1989), we determined that denial of access to an inmate law clerk to assist in preparation for the rebuttal hearing was not a denial of due process. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.