third prong analysis (Idaho) · Go Syfert
← Idaho issues

third prong analysis in Idaho

5 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2020 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Grossgreen
idahoctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
2 sentences

2020State v. Gross, 146 Idaho 15, 18 , 189 P.3d 477, 480 (Ct. App. 2008).

2020State v. Gross, 146 Idaho 15, 18 , 189 P.3d 477, 480 (Ct. App. 2008).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Miller green
idaho · 2019
2 sentences

2020Saenz, ___ Idaho at ___, ___ P.3d at ___; Miller, 165 Idaho at 119 , 443 P.3d at 133 . 8 Further, under the third prong of the analysis, courts have consistently held prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments will rise to the level of fundamental error only if the misconduct was so egregious or inflammatory that any ensuing prejudice could not have been remedied by a curative jury instruction informing the jury to disregard the comments.

2020Saenz, ___ Idaho at ___, ___ P.3d at ___; Miller, 165 Idaho at 119 , 443 P.3d at 133 . 8 Further, under the third prong of the analysis, courts have consistently held prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments will rise to the level of fundamental error only if the misconduct was so egregious or inflammatory that any ensuing prejudice could not have been remedied by a curative jury instruction informing the jury to disregard the comments.

22020–2020
State v. Perry green
idaho · 2010
2 sentences

2014Perry, 150 Idaho at 226 , 245 P.3d at 978 .

2014Perry, 150 Idaho at 226 , 245 P.3d at 978 .

12014–2014
J.R. Simplot Company, Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Commission green
idaho · 1991
2 sentences

1992However, because the agency’s statutory interpretation contradicts the clear and unambiguous expression of the legislature, under the third prong of the test articulated in Simplot v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n, 120 Idaho 849 , 820 P.2d 1206 (1991), IDWR is not entitled to judicial deference.

1992However, because the agency’s statutory interpretation contradicts the clear and unambiguous expression of the legislature, under the third prong of the test articulated in Simplot v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n, 120 Idaho 849 , 820 P.2d 1206 (1991), IDWR is not entitled to judicial deference.

11992–1992
State v. Detweiler green
idahoctapp · 1989
2 sentences

1991The Court of Appeals, in State v. Detweiler, 115 Idaho 443 , 767 P.2d 286 (Ct.App.1989), stated that I.C.R. 11(c) contains the minimum requirements for accepting guilty pleas and that the purpose of these requirements is to assure that a defendant’s plea of guilty has been proffered knowingly and voluntarily.

1991The Court of Appeals, in State v. Detweiler, 115 Idaho 443 , 767 P.2d 286 (Ct.App.1989), stated that I.C.R. 11(c) contains the minimum requirements for accepting guilty pleas and that the purpose of these requirements is to assure that a defendant’s plea of guilty has been proffered knowingly and voluntarily.

11991–1991

Where else courts name it

PA 112 (1979–2025) NY 51 (1981–2025) GA 35 (1987–2026) TX 34 (1983–2024) WA 25 (1988–2024) MS 23 (1990–2025) CA 23 (1981–2024) OH 23 (1990–2026) IL 22 (1989–2026) NJ 20 (1999–2020) MN 19 (1989–2023) CT 19 (1992–2025) MI 18 (1995–2026) NH 13 (1991–2022) NM 12 (1992–2024) CO 12 (1994–2018) WI 12 (1979–2025) RI 11 (1991–2020) MA 11 (1996–2018) KY 11 (1994–2021) MD 9 (2009–2020) WV 8 (1986–2023) DC 7 (1984–2024) UT 7 (1998–2025) FL 7 (1994–2017) ND 6 (2006–2018) HI 6 (1998–2026) AL 6 (1995–2005) OR 6 (1994–2024) NC 6 (1988–2012) LA 6 (1989–2024) IN 5 (1997–2023) VT 5 (2001–2023) ID 5 (1991–2020) MT 5 (2005–2012) MO 4 (1992–2018) VA 4 (2000–2022) TN 4 (2002–2019) OK 4 (2014–2019) ME 4 (1990–2014) NV 3 (2019–2019) SD 3 (1986–2001) WY 2 (2007–2007) NE 2 (1999–2001) DE 2 (1996–2023) AR 2 (1996–1996) IA 2 (2012–2012)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check