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 2009–2020 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2020“Whether a court lacks jurisdiction is a question of law that may be raised at any time.” State v. Jones, 140 Idaho 755, 757 , 101 P.3d 699, 701 (2004). 2020“Whether a court lacks jurisdiction is a question of law that may be raised at any time.” State v. Jones, 140 Idaho 755, 757 , 101 P.3d 699, 701 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2019See id. at 687-88 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Perrygreen2 sentences2014Severson’s direct appeal was decided before the Idaho Supreme Court clarified the fundamental error standard in State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 214 , 245 P.3d 961, 966 (2010). 3 In Severson, the Court considered a statement by the prosecutor to be fundamental error if it went “to the foundation or basis of a defendant’s rights or . . . to the foundation of the case or take[s] from the defendant a right which was essential to his defense and which no court could or ought to permit him to waive.” Severson, 147 Idaho at 716 , 215 P.3d at 436 . 4 Before applying the principles of res judicata in a 2014Severson’s direct appeal was decided before the Idaho Supreme Court clarified the fundamental error standard in State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 214 , 245 P.3d 961, 966 (2010). 3 In Severson, the Court considered a statement by the prosecutor to be fundamental error if it went “to the foundation or basis of a defendant’s rights or . . . to the foundation of the case or take[s] from the defendant a right which was essential to his defense and which no court could or ought to permit him to waive.” Severson, 147 Idaho at 716 , 215 P.3d at 436 . 4 Before applying the principles of res judicata in a | 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. Severson
green
2 sentences2020Id. 2014Severson’s direct appeal was decided before the Idaho Supreme Court clarified the fundamental error standard in State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 214 , 245 P.3d 961, 966 (2010). 3 In Severson, the Court considered a statement by the prosecutor to be fundamental error if it went “to the foundation or basis of a defendant’s rights or . . . to the foundation of the case or take[s] from the defendant a right which was essential to his defense and which no court could or ought to permit him to waive.” Severson, 147 Idaho at 716 , 215 P.3d at 436 . 4 Before applying the principles of res judicata in a | 2 | 2014–2020 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2009It maintains that the only time a prosecutor’s failure to disclose evidence or witnesses should be treated as misconduct is when the failure is a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). 29 According to the State, other failures to disclose are only discovery violations, the remedy for which is within the trial court’s discretion. 2009It maintains that the only time a prosecutor’s failure to disclose evidence or witnesses should be treated as misconduct is when the failure is a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). 29 According to the State, other failures to disclose are only discovery violations, the remedy for which is within the trial court’s discretion. | 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.