Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 9-102 (2026)

Questions of law addressed to court. 

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

Questions of law addressed to court. 

All questions of law arising upon the trial, including the admissibility of testimony, the facts preliminary to such admission, and the construction of statutes and other writings, and other rules of evidence, are to be decided by the court when submitted and before the trial proceeds, and all discussions of law are to be addressed to the court. Whenever the knowledge of the court is by this chapter made evidence of a fact, the court is to declare such knowledge to the jury, who are bound to accept it.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case: Bracken v. City of Ketchum, 537 P.3d 44 (Idaho 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bracken v. City of Ketchum, 537 P.3d 44 (Idaho 2023). · cites it 8× “Bracken’s motion included eighteen propositions of law for the district court to rule on and argued that under Idaho Code section 9-102 the court had a statutory duty to decide the issues “when submitted.”
State v. Kellogg, 636 P.2d 750 (Idaho 1981). · cites it 4× “Assuming, however, that Kellogg intended by his motion to determine the scope of the evidence to submit the question of constitutionality to the court, we conclude that the court did not err in denying the motion. We begin our analysis by noting that it is the legislature, not…”
State v. Hobbs, 611 P.2d 1047 (Idaho 1980). · cites it 4× “*1048 Appellant contends his conviction must be reversed because the state did not put before the jury any evidence of phencyclidine's classification in the Act as a controlled substance.”
Hergert v. Bank of the West (In Re Hergert), 275 B.R. 58 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2002). · cites it 2× “See Section 9-102 (definition of “send”). Similarly, because the address is “held out by [the secured party] as the place for receipt of such communications [i.”
Simplot v. William C. Owens, Md, Pa, 805 P.2d 449 (Idaho 1990). “2d at 918 (quoting UCC § 9-102, Official Comment 1) (emphasis added by 5th Cir.”
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.