Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 1-2406 (2026)

Jurisdiction — Assignment and revocation of assignment of cases — Authority in furtherance of jurisdiction. 

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Jurisdiction — Assignment and revocation of assignment of cases — Authority in furtherance of jurisdiction. 

(1) Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the Idaho court of appeals shall have jurisdiction to hear and to decide all cases assigned to it by the Idaho supreme court; provided, that the supreme court shall not assign cases invoking the supreme court’s original jurisdiction, nor appeals from imposition of sentences of capital punishment in criminal cases, nor appeals from the industrial commission, nor appeals from the public utilities commission.

(2)  In assigning cases to the Idaho court of appeals, the Idaho supreme court shall give due regard to the workload of each court, to the error review and correction functions of the court of appeals, and to the desirability of retaining for decision by the supreme court those cases in which there is substantial public interest or in which there are significant issues involving clarification or development of the law.
(3)  Upon motion of any party, or upon recommendation of the court of appeals, or upon its own motion, the supreme court may revoke assignment of a case to the court of appeals. In the event of such transfer or revocation of assignment, the case shall be heard and decided by the supreme court.
(4)  A judge of the court of appeals may be assigned cases in other courts from time to time by the chief justice of the supreme court of Idaho, and when so assigned shall have the same powers, duties and functions as a judge of the court to which he is assigned; provided, however, that no judge shall participate in the review by the supreme court or by the court of appeals of a case in which he participated while serving on the district court or court of appeals.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2021 · leading case: State v. Guzman, 842 P.2d 660 (Idaho 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Guzman, 842 P.2d 660 (Idaho 1992). · cites it 8× “I.C. § 1-2406; I.A.R. 108. This distinguishes the relationship of this Court to our Court of Appeals from that of the United States Supreme Court to the circuit courts of the United States.”
State v. Smith, 684 N.E.2d 668 (Ohio 1997). “78-2-2(3)(i)(1996) ]; Virginia [Va.CodeAnn. 17-110.1 (1997) ]; Washington [Wash.”
State v. Smith, 684 N.E.2d 668 (Ohio 1997). “See Idaho [Idaho Code 1-2406 (1997), Idaho App.R.11(1997)]; Arkansas [Ark.”
State v. Jesse S. Cornelison, 302 P.3d 1066 (Idaho Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “When read in conjunction with Idaho Code § 1-2406 (1), which closely mirrors the wording in Rule 108, 2 we must conclude, as we did in Morgan , that it is plainly beyond our scope of authority to review a decision made by the Supreme Court before assignment of the case to this…”
State v. Kevin John Nielsen (Idaho Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “When read in conjunction with I.C. § 1-2406(1), which closely mirrors the wording in Rule 108, 1 we must conclude, as we did in Morgan, that it is plainly beyond our scope of authority to review a decision made by the Supreme Court before assignment of the case to this Court.”
State v. Douglas Arthur Liles (Idaho Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “When read in conjunction with I.C. § 1-2406(1), which closely mirrors the wording in Rule 108, 1 we must conclude, as we did in Morgan, that it is plainly beyond our scope of authority to review a decision made by the Supreme Court before assignment of the case to this Court.”
State v. Alexander Vincent Collins (Idaho Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “When read in conjunction with I.C. § 1-2406(1), which closely mirrors the wording in Rule 108, 1 we must conclude, as we did in Morgan, that it is plainly beyond our scope of authority to review a decision made by the Supreme Court before assignment of the case to this Court.”
State v. Charles Joseph Mumme (Idaho Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “When read in conjunction with Idaho Code § 1-2406 (1), which closely mirrors the wording in Rule 108, 2 we must conclude, as we did in Morgan, that it is plainly beyond our scope of authority to review a 2 Idaho Code § 1-2406 (1) provides: Any provision of law to the contrary…”
State v. Jose Tapia-Lopez (Idaho Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “When read in conjunction with Idaho Code § 1-2406 (1), which closely mirrors the wording in Rule 108, 1 we must conclude, as we did in Morgan, that it is plainly beyond our scope of authority to review a decision made by the Supreme Court before assignment of the case to this…”
State v. Daniel Chippewa (Idaho Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “When read in conjunction with I.C. § 1-2406(1), which closely mirrors the wording in Rule 108, 1 we must conclude, as we did in Morgan, that it is plainly beyond our scope of authority to review a decision made by the Supreme Court before assignment of the case to this Court.”
State v. Jason Leonard Williams (Idaho Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “When read in conjunction with I.C. § 1-2406(1), which closely mirrors the wording in Rule 108, 1 we must conclude, as we did in Morgan, that it is plainly beyond our scope of authority to review a decision made by the Supreme Court before assignment of the case to this Court.”
State v. Ian A. Neff (Idaho Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “When read in conjunction with I.C. § 1-2406(1), which closely mirrors the wording in Rule 108, 1 1 Idaho Code Section 1-2406(1) provides: Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the Idaho court of appeals shall have jurisdiction to hear and to decide all cases…”
Show all 15 citing cases →
Idaho Code § 1-2406(1): 7 cases
State v. Kevin John Nielsen (Idaho Ct. App. 2013). “When read in conjunction with I.C. § 1-2406(1), which closely mirrors the wording in Rule 108, 1 we must conclude, as we did in Morgan, that it is plainly beyond our scope of authority to review a decision made by the Supreme Court before assignment of the case to this Court.”
State v. Douglas Arthur Liles (Idaho Ct. App. 2013). “When read in conjunction with I.C. § 1-2406(1), which closely mirrors the wording in Rule 108, 1 we must conclude, as we did in Morgan, that it is plainly beyond our scope of authority to review a decision made by the Supreme Court before assignment of the case to this Court.”
State v. Alexander Vincent Collins (Idaho Ct. App. 2013). “When read in conjunction with I.C. § 1-2406(1), which closely mirrors the wording in Rule 108, 1 we must conclude, as we did in Morgan, that it is plainly beyond our scope of authority to review a decision made by the Supreme Court before assignment of the case to this Court.”
State v. Daniel Chippewa (Idaho Ct. App. 2013). “When read in conjunction with I.C. § 1-2406(1), which closely mirrors the wording in Rule 108, 1 we must conclude, as we did in Morgan, that it is plainly beyond our scope of authority to review a decision made by the Supreme Court before assignment of the case to this Court.”
State v. Jason Leonard Williams (Idaho Ct. App. 2013). “When read in conjunction with I.C. § 1-2406(1), which closely mirrors the wording in Rule 108, 1 we must conclude, as we did in Morgan, that it is plainly beyond our scope of authority to review a decision made by the Supreme Court before assignment of the case to this Court.”
Idaho Code § 1-2406(2): 1 case
State v. Guzman, 842 P.2d 660 (Idaho 1992). “I.C. § 1-2406; I.A.R. 108. This distinguishes the relationship of this Court to our Court of Appeals from that of the United States Supreme Court to the circuit courts of the United States.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.