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 1986–2020 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. Langdongreen2 sentences2020See State v. Langdon, 117 Idaho 115, 117 , 785 P.2d 679, 681 (Ct. App. 1990) (noting that sanctions for failing to diligently prosecute an appeal from the magistrate division are discretionary and may include dismissal of the appeal for failing to timely file an appellate brief). 2 The State alternatively argues that, even if the district court erred in denying Simmons’s motion for extension of time, there is no remedy available to Simmons because she failed to properly challenge the district court’s reason for dismissing her appeal. 2020See State v. Langdon, 117 Idaho 115, 117 , 785 P.2d 679, 681 (Ct. App. 1990) (noting that sanctions for failing to diligently prosecute an appeal from the magistrate division are discretionary and may include dismissal of the appeal for failing to timely file an appellate brief). 2 The State alternatively argues that, even if the district court erred in denying Simmons’s motion for extension of time, there is no remedy available to Simmons because she failed to properly challenge the district court’s reason for dismissing her appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Simmons v. Perkinsgreen2 sentences1992In Simmons v. Perkins, 63 Idaho 136, 144 , 118 P.2d 740, 744 (1941), we held that “where the owner of real property constructs a way over it for his use and convenience, the mere use thereof by others which in no way interferes with his use will be presumed to be by way of license or permission.” Therefore, without the above-quoted finding of the district court, regarding the establishment of the driveway, the Simmons exception operates to give appellants the presumption of permissiveness. 1992In Simmons v. Perkins, 63 Idaho 136, 144 , 118 P.2d 740, 744 (1941), we held that “where the owner of real property constructs a way over it for his use and convenience, the mere use thereof by others which in no way interferes with his use will be presumed to be by way of license or permission.” Therefore, without the above-quoted finding of the district court, regarding the establishment of the driveway, the Simmons exception operates to give appellants the presumption of permissiveness. | 1 | 1 |
Sinnett v. Werelusgreen2 sentences1992On remand, if Conway rebuts the Simmons presumption of permissiveness, the district court must set forth “with precision and particularity, the origin, course and dimension, on the ground, of the area affected by the easement established, with the right to take further testimony in this respect if deemed necessary.” Sinnett v. Werelus, 83 Idaho 514, 524 , 365 P.2d 952, 957 (1961). 1992On remand, if Conway rebuts the Simmons presumption of permissiveness, the district court must set forth “with precision and particularity, the origin, course and dimension, on the ground, of the area affected by the easement established, with the right to take further testimony in this respect if deemed necessary.” Sinnett v. Werelus, 83 Idaho 514, 524 , 365 P.2d 952, 957 (1961). | 1 | 1 |
Cusic v. Givensgreen2 sentences1986See Cusic v. Givens, 70 Idaho 229, 231 , 215 P.2d 297, 298 (1950). 1986See Cusic v. Givens, 70 Idaho 229, 231 , 215 P.2d 297, 298 (1950). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
North Carolina v. Alford
green
1 sentence2019Simmons appeals. 1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). 1 The alleged constitutional violations at sentencing include the failure to be advised of the Fifth Amendment right to be silent during the presentence investigation, the failure to order a neuropsychological evaluation, and the failure to redact the presentence investigation report. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Shafer v. South Carolina
green
2 sentences2015Shafer, 532 U.S. at 51 , 121 S.Ct. at 1272-73 , 149 L.Ed.2d at 191-92 . 2015Shafer, 532 U.S. at 51 , 121 S.Ct. at 1272-73 , 149 L.Ed.2d at 191-92 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Cardenas v. Kurpjuweit
green
2 sentences1992We take note of the case Cardenas v. Kurpjuweit, 116 Idaho 739 , 779 P.2d 414 (1989), wherein the district court concluded that the clear and convincing standard had been met by the party claiming a prescriptive easement to a gravel driveway. 1992We take note of the case Cardenas v. Kurpjuweit, 116 Idaho 739 , 779 P.2d 414 (1989), wherein the district court concluded that the clear and convincing standard had been met by the party claiming a prescriptive easement to a gravel driveway. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
West v. Smith
green
2 sentences1986The Melendezes argue that the Simmons rule or exception is no longer favored in Idaho. *405 They point particularly to our Supreme Court’s opinion in West v. Smith, supra, where Simmons was mentioned at 95 Idaho at 557 n. 28, 511 P.2d 518 n. 28 . 1986The Melendezes argue that the Simmons rule or exception is no longer favored in Idaho. *405 They point particularly to our Supreme Court’s opinion in West v. Smith, supra, where Simmons was mentioned at 95 Idaho at 557 n. 28, 511 P.2d 518 n. 28 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.