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 1 courts 1988–1992 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. Dillongreen2 sentences1992Furthermore, in Broadhead , this Court stated: In State v. Dillon, 100 Idaho 723, 724 , 604 P.2d 737, 738 (1979), the Court succinctly stated the standard we must follow in reviewing sentences: Sentencing is a matter committed to the discretion of the trial judge, and the defendant has the burden of showing a clear abuse thereof on appeal. 1992Furthermore, in Broadhead , this Court stated: In State v. Dillon, 100 Idaho 723, 724 , 604 P.2d 737, 738 (1979), the Court succinctly stated the standard we must follow in reviewing sentences: Sentencing is a matter committed to the discretion of the trial judge, and the defendant has the burden of showing a clear abuse thereof on appeal. | 3 | 3 |
Linscott v. Rainier National Life Insurancegreen2 sentences1988Co., 100 Idaho 854, 861 , 606 P.2d 958, 965 (1980) Justice McFadden writing for the Court succinctly stated the rule regarding the award of punitive damages in contract cases: Punitive damages may only be considered in [ordinary breach of contract] cases where there has been alleged in the pleadings and proof of conduct by one party involving some element of outrage similar to that usually found in the commission of crimes or torts done intentionally or with reckless indifference to the rights of the other party (e.g. fraud) or with an evil motive, (e.g. to vex, harass, annoy, injure or oppres 1988Co., 100 Idaho 854, 861 , 606 P.2d 958, 965 (1980) Justice McFadden writing for the Court succinctly stated the rule regarding the award of punitive damages in contract cases: Punitive damages may only be considered in [ordinary breach of contract] cases where there has been alleged in the pleadings and proof of conduct by one party involving some element of outrage similar to that usually found in the commission of crimes or torts done intentionally or with reckless indifference to the rights of the other party (e.g. fraud) or with an evil motive, (e.g. to vex, harass, annoy, injure or oppres | 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. Small
green
2 sentences1989In State v. Small, 107 Idaho 504 , 690 P.2d 1336 (1984) this Court succinctly stated the standard we employ in reviewing sentences that are asserted to be excessive: Where reasonable minds might differ as to the sufficiency of time of confinement, the discretion vested in the sentencing court in imposing sentence will be respected. 1989In State v. Small, 107 Idaho 504 , 690 P.2d 1336 (1984) this Court succinctly stated the standard we employ in reviewing sentences that are asserted to be excessive: Where reasonable minds might differ as to the sufficiency of time of confinement, the discretion vested in the sentencing court in imposing sentence will be respected. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Holmes v. State
green
2 sentences1989Holmes v. State, 104 Idaho 312 , 658 P.2d 983 (1983). 1989Holmes v. State, 104 Idaho 312 , 658 P.2d 983 (1983). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.