Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 19-4201 (2026)
Short title.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1951–2025 · leading case: Sanchez v. Arave, 815 P.2d 1061 (Idaho 1991).
Sanchez v. Arave, 815 P.2d 1061 (Idaho 1991). “They are not the only class of potential habeas corpus petitioners, as is observed on reading I.C. § 19-4201: "Every person unlawfully committed, detained, confined or restrained of his liberty, under any pretense whatever, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into…”
Jacobsen v. State, 577 P.2d 24 (Idaho 1978). “ticity of the affidavit sworn before the commissioner in Wyoming; that the district court erred in ruling appellant was a fugitive from Wyoming; that appellant had not committed the crime of removing mortgaged property from the jurisdiction of the creditor; that appellant was…”
Abbott v. State, 924 P.2d 1225 (Idaho Ct. App. 1996). “§ 19-4901, including challenges to the conditions of confinement, may continue to be asserted in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to I.C. § 19-4201 through 19-4236.”
Row v. State, 21 P.3d 895 (Idaho 2001). “Allegations challenging the conditions of confinement must be brought by a petition for habeas corpus under the Idaho Habeas Corpus and Institutional Litigation Procedures Act, Idaho Code §§ 19-4201 et seq., and not by a petition for post-conviction relief under Idaho Code §…”
Quinlan v. Idaho Comm'n for Pardons & Parole, 69 P.3d 146 (Idaho 2003). “Quinlan supports his contention by claiming that appointment of counsel in the habeas corpus proceeding is subject to the same standards that apply in Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act (“UPCPA”) (I.C. §§ 19-4901—4911) cases.”
Mitchell v. Pincock, 577 P.2d 343 (Idaho 1978). “I.C. § 19-4201 et seq. The order quashing the Writ of Habeas Corpus and all subsequent orders including any order of guardianship of District Judge Smith are reversed and the Writ of Habeas Corpus ordered by Judge Schwartzman is reinstated, effective immediately.”
Franklin v. State, 392 P.2d 552 (Idaho 1964). “The order of the Third Judicial District Court denying the writ of habeas corpus and remanding appellant to custody, is affirmed, and the cause is remanded to such district court with directions that it issue a bench warrant for apprehension of appellant and his arrest thereon,…”
Johnson v. State, 376 P.2d 704 (Idaho 1962). “” I.C. § 19-4201. The applications claim unlawful confinement and restraint and set out facts which we consider substantiate such claims; in particular it is charged that appellant was held over 30 days without being allowed to contact his mother or without being allowed to…”
Stockwell v. State, 573 P.2d 116 (Idaho 1977). “The record does not indicate whether a return to the writ or an answer to the return, as contemplated by I.C. § 19-4201 et seq. was ever filed. [4] At the hearing held on November 10, at 4:00 p.”
Brennan v. State, 841 P.2d 441 (Idaho Ct. App. 1992). “Idaho Code § 19-4201 provides that “Every person unlawfully committed, detained, confined or restrained of his liberty, under any pretense whatever, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment or restraint.”
Walker v. State, 446 P.2d 886 (Idaho 1968). “[3] I.C. §§ 19-4201 and 19-4215; Higheagle v.”
Dopp v. Idaho Comm'n of Pardons & Parole, 84 P.3d 593 (Idaho Ct. App. 2004). “12(b)(1) because the unlawful denial of parole is not a basis for habeas corpus relief under the Idaho Habeas Corpus and Institutional Litigation Procedures Act, I.C. §§ 19-4201 to 19-4226. Second, the magistrate concluded that even if it exercised jurisdiction, Dopp’s petition…”
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.