5 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, Corp.green1 sentence2024Nonetheless, a trial court fails to “reach its decision by the exercise of reason” Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 Idaho 856 , 863, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (2018), by issuing an injunction that risks restraining legal conduct, and, in effect, grants greater than complete relief to the plaintiff. | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. McNicholsgreen2 sentences2018Idaho Rule of Evidence 201(c) provides that when a court takes judicial notice, whether sua sponte or pursuant to the request of a party, it “shall identify the specific documents or items that were so noticed.” See Taylor v. McNichols, 149 Idaho 826, 835-36 , 243 P.3d 642, 651-52 (2010) (explaining that the specificity requirement from I.R.E. 201(c) does not allow courts to take judicial notice of an underlying case in toto without specifying which documents and exhibits it is taking notice of). 2018Idaho Rule of Evidence 201(c) provides that when a court takes judicial notice, whether sua sponte or pursuant to the request of a party, it “shall identify the specific documents or items that were so noticed.” See Taylor v. McNichols, 149 Idaho 826, 835-36 , 243 P.3d 642, 651-52 (2010) (explaining that the specificity requirement from I.R.E. 201(c) does not allow courts to take judicial notice of an underlying case in toto without specifying which documents and exhibits it is taking notice of). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gummgreen2 sentences1983See State v. Gumm, 99 Idaho 549, 551 , 585 P.2d 959, 961 (1978). 1983See State v. Gumm, 99 Idaho 549, 551 , 585 P.2d 959, 961 (1978). | 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. Kirk Julliard Gosch
green
2 sentences2022Citing Gosch, 157 Idaho 803 , 339 P.3d 1207 , Lewis contends that broadly interpreting the language of the search warrant as including separate “vehicles or living quarters” that do not belong to the property owner identified in the warrant “frustrates the purpose of the specificity requirement.” In Gosch, law enforcement obtained a search warrant for Gosch’s apartment and his vehicle, which was described as a black jeep. 2022Citing Gosch, 157 Idaho 803 , 339 P.3d 1207 , Lewis contends that broadly interpreting the language of the search warrant as including separate “vehicles or living quarters” that do not belong to the property owner identified in the warrant “frustrates the purpose of the specificity requirement.” In Gosch, law enforcement obtained a search warrant for Gosch’s apartment and his vehicle, which was described as a black jeep. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Cody James Fortin v. State
green
2 sentences2018Id. at 442-43 , 374 P.3d at 605 -06 . 2018Id. at 442-43 , 374 P.3d at 605 -06 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.