5 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2023When a petition for post- conviction alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, this Court reviews the claim under the two- prong test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). to prevail on such a claim, the applicant for post-conviction relief must show (1) counsel’s performance fell below an 3 objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result would have been different. 2023Id. at 687–88. | 2 | 3 |
Lisa A. Ellefson v. Stephen Palmergreen2 sentences2020In order to grant a new trial, the district court must apply a two- prong test: “(1) whether the verdict is against his or her view of the clear weight of the evidence; and (2) whether a new trial would produce a different result.” Ellefson v. Palmer, 162 Idaho 393 , 8 396, 397 P.3d 1152, 1155 (2017) (quoting Hoffer v. Shappard, 160 Idaho 868, 877 , 380 P.3d 681, 690 (2016)). 2020In order to grant a new trial, the district court must apply a two- prong test: “(1) whether the verdict is against his or her view of the clear weight of the evidence; and (2) whether a new trial would produce a different result.” Ellefson v. Palmer, 162 Idaho 393 , 8 396, 397 P.3d 1152, 1155 (2017) (quoting Hoffer v. Shappard, 160 Idaho 868, 877 , 380 P.3d 681, 690 (2016)). | 1 | 1 |
Randy Hoffer v. Scott A. Shappard, D.O.green2 sentences2020In order to grant a new trial, the district court must apply a two- prong test: “(1) whether the verdict is against his or her view of the clear weight of the evidence; and (2) whether a new trial would produce a different result.” Ellefson v. Palmer, 162 Idaho 393 , 8 396, 397 P.3d 1152, 1155 (2017) (quoting Hoffer v. Shappard, 160 Idaho 868, 877 , 380 P.3d 681, 690 (2016)). 2020In order to grant a new trial, the district court must apply a two- prong test: “(1) whether the verdict is against his or her view of the clear weight of the evidence; and (2) whether a new trial would produce a different result.” Ellefson v. Palmer, 162 Idaho 393 , 8 396, 397 P.3d 1152, 1155 (2017) (quoting Hoffer v. Shappard, 160 Idaho 868, 877 , 380 P.3d 681, 690 (2016)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd
green
1 sentence2019In Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, the U.S. Supreme Court established the two prong analysis required to establish the qualified immunity shield for federal and state officials from money damages: “a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” 563 U.S. 731 , 735 (2011). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.