Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 19-4210 (2026)

Discovery in habeas corpus proceedings. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Discovery in habeas corpus proceedings. 

(1) Discovery shall not ordinarily be permitted in habeas corpus cases.

(2)  No discovery shall be permitted if the issues raised by the petition, the response or reply are wholly legal in nature.
(3)  If factual issues are raised by the pleadings, the court may, upon motion, grant leave for discovery in accordance with Idaho rules of civil procedure.
(a)  The party must file a motion for leave to conduct discovery, attaching a copy of the discovery sought.
(b)  If the court finds that discovery is necessary to protect or defend a substantive state or federal constitutional right at issue, it shall enter an order tailored to allow discovery for that limited purpose.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2005–2020 · leading case: Drennon v. Fisher, 120 P.3d 1146 (Idaho Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Drennon v. Fisher, 120 P.3d 1146 (Idaho Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “See I.C. § 19-4210. However, even if Drennon’s allegations are true, he failed to attach to his petition documentation of his attempts to exhaust admin *945 istrative remedies that he admitted, in his verified petition, were in his possession.”
Dopp v. Idaho Comm'n of Pardons & Parole, 162 P.3d 781 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “In habeas corpus actions, discovery is governed by I.C. § 19-4210, which states: *405 (1) Discovery shall not ordinarily be permitted in habeas corpus cases.”
Williams v. Hollinshead (Idaho 2020). · cites it 6× ““If the court finds that discovery is necessary to protect or defend a substantive state or federal constitutional right at issue, it shall enter an order tailored to allow discovery for that limited purpose.”
Williams v. Hollinshead (Idaho 2020). · cites it 6× ““If the court finds that discovery is necessary to protect or defend a substantive state or federal constitutional right at issue, it shall enter an order tailored to allow discovery for that limited purpose.”
Michael C. McCoy v. Olivia Craven (Idaho Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “As stated above, McCoy‟s claims for relief are based on misinterpretation of the factual circumstances surrounding his parole revocation and purely legal questions concerning whether statutory requirements had been met given those factual circumstances.”
Idaho Code § 19-4210(1): 3 cases
Williams v. Hollinshead (Idaho 2020). ““If the court finds that discovery is necessary to protect or defend a substantive state or federal constitutional right at issue, it shall enter an order tailored to allow discovery for that limited purpose.”
Williams v. Hollinshead (Idaho 2020). ““If the court finds that discovery is necessary to protect or defend a substantive state or federal constitutional right at issue, it shall enter an order tailored to allow discovery for that limited purpose.”
Michael C. McCoy v. Olivia Craven (Idaho Ct. App. 2010). “As stated above, McCoy‟s claims for relief are based on misinterpretation of the factual circumstances surrounding his parole revocation and purely legal questions concerning whether statutory requirements had been met given those factual circumstances.”
Idaho Code § 19-4210(3)(a): 2 cases
Williams v. Hollinshead (Idaho 2020). ““If the court finds that discovery is necessary to protect or defend a substantive state or federal constitutional right at issue, it shall enter an order tailored to allow discovery for that limited purpose.”
Williams v. Hollinshead (Idaho 2020). ““If the court finds that discovery is necessary to protect or defend a substantive state or federal constitutional right at issue, it shall enter an order tailored to allow discovery for that limited purpose.”
Idaho Code § 19-4210(3)(b): 2 cases
Williams v. Hollinshead (Idaho 2020). ““If the court finds that discovery is necessary to protect or defend a substantive state or federal constitutional right at issue, it shall enter an order tailored to allow discovery for that limited purpose.”
Williams v. Hollinshead (Idaho 2020). ““If the court finds that discovery is necessary to protect or defend a substantive state or federal constitutional right at issue, it shall enter an order tailored to allow discovery for that limited purpose.”
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.