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 1991–2022 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. Wilbert Longhofergreen2 sentences2022This Court has previously ruled in State v. Longhofer, 162 Idaho 525, 528 , 399 P.3d 852, 855 (Ct. App. 2017), that “in order to admit the results of a breath test into evidence the State must proceed in one of two ways.” “First, the State may establish that the administrative procedures, which ensure the reliability of the test, have been met.” Id. 2022This Court has previously ruled in State v. Longhofer, 162 Idaho 525, 528 , 399 P.3d 852, 855 (Ct. App. 2017), that “in order to admit the results of a breath test into evidence the State must proceed in one of two ways.” “First, the State may establish that the administrative procedures, which ensure the reliability of the test, have been met.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Clappgreen2 sentences2022“Second, even without fulfilling the administrative procedures, the State may still make the test results admissible if it calls an expert witness to establish the reliability of the test.” Id.; see also State v. Clapp, 170 Idaho 314, 317 , 510 P.3d 667, 680 (2022) (noting foundational requirement for conformity with test procedure). 2022“Second, even without fulfilling the administrative procedures, the State may still make the test results admissible if it calls an expert witness to establish the reliability of the test.” Id.; see also State v. Clapp, 170 Idaho 314, 317 , 510 P.3d 667, 680 (2022) (noting foundational requirement for conformity with test procedure). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Healygreen2 sentences2017See State v. Healy, 151 Idaho 734, 736-37 , 264 P.3d 75, 77-78 (Ct. App. 2011). 2017See State v. Healy, 151 Idaho 734, 736-37 , 264 P.3d 75, 77-78 (Ct. App. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Utzgreen2 sentences1999State v. Utz, 125 Idaho 127, 129 , 867 P.2d 1001, 1003 (Ct.App. 1993). 1999State v. Utz, 125 Idaho 127, 129 , 867 P.2d 1001, 1003 (Ct.App. 1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Creagreen2 sentences1996State v. Crea, 119 Idaho 352, 354 , 806 P.2d 445, 447 (1991). 1996State v. Crea, 119 Idaho 352, 354 , 806 P.2d 445, 447 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Garrett
green
2 sentences1991Instead, and in spite of the apparent holding in State v. Wilson, 116 Idaho 771 , 780 P.2d 93 (1989), that an Intoximeter 3000 with the Taguchi cell removed is not grounds for suppressing breath test results, Crea appears to leave it up to the individual trial *1215 courts to determine whether a procedure is or is not reliable: "The admissibility of expert opinion testimony is discretionary with the trial court and will not be abused absent a showing of an abuse of discretion." In contrast to Crea and Iwakiri , the majority's opinion in State v. Garrett, 119 Idaho 878 , 811 P.2d 488 (1991), em 1991Instead, and in spite of the apparent holding in State v. Wilson, 116 Idaho 771 , 780 P.2d 93 (1989), that an Intoximeter 3000 with the Taguchi cell removed is not grounds for suppressing breath test results, Crea appears to leave it up to the individual trial *1215 courts to determine whether a procedure is or is not reliable: "The admissibility of expert opinion testimony is discretionary with the trial court and will not be abused absent a showing of an abuse of discretion." In contrast to Crea and Iwakiri , the majority's opinion in State v. Garrett, 119 Idaho 878 , 811 P.2d 488 (1991), em | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Wilson
green
2 sentences1991Instead, and in spite of the apparent holding in State v. Wilson, 116 Idaho 771 , 780 P.2d 93 (1989), that an Intoximeter 3000 with the Taguchi cell removed is not grounds for suppressing breath test results, Crea appears to leave it up to the individual trial *1215 courts to determine whether a procedure is or is not reliable: "The admissibility of expert opinion testimony is discretionary with the trial court and will not be abused absent a showing of an abuse of discretion." In contrast to Crea and Iwakiri , the majority's opinion in State v. Garrett, 119 Idaho 878 , 811 P.2d 488 (1991), em 1991Instead, and in spite of the apparent holding in State v. Wilson, 116 Idaho 771 , 780 P.2d 93 (1989), that an Intoximeter 3000 with the Taguchi cell removed is not grounds for suppressing breath test results, Crea appears to leave it up to the individual trial *1215 courts to determine whether a procedure is or is not reliable: "The admissibility of expert opinion testimony is discretionary with the trial court and will not be abused absent a showing of an abuse of discretion." In contrast to Crea and Iwakiri , the majority's opinion in State v. Garrett, 119 Idaho 878 , 811 P.2d 488 (1991), em | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.
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.