 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Weeks v. E. Idaho Health Servs., Docket No. 32458, 2007 Opinion No. 39,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in failing to admit family's expert testimony as to mechanical effects of the infusion because he based his testimony upon sound scientific principles, Idaho R. Evid. 702; it erred in holding that the testimony was not admissible regarding chemical effects because adverse effects could be inferred from facts known to expert.
|
|||||
| State v. Watson, Docket No. 31483, 2007 Opinion No. 7,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, March 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for possession of a controlled substance in violation of Idaho Code Ann. § 37-2732(c) was improper because an officer intentionally removed items that could not have been weapons when it was unnecessary to do so in order to remove a toothpaste container. Thus, the officer acted unreasonably.
|
|||||
| Am. Falls Reservoir Dist. No. 2 v. Idaho Dep't of Water Res., Docket No. 33249/33311/33399, 2007 Opinion No. 40,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, March 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred engaging in analysis of constitutionality of Rules for Conjunctive Management of Surface and Ground Water Resources (Rules); failure to recite burdens and evidentiary standards, set specific timelines and objective standards did not make Rules unconstitutional. Recognition could be given to partial decrees and carryover water.
|
|||||
| State v. Davenport, Docket No. 31883, 2007 Opinion No. 8,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In the absence of furtive or aggressive behavior or suspicious circumstances, defendant's act of returning his hands to his pockets on a cold night despite a police officer's contrary instruction did not create reasonable suspicion that defendant was armed and dangerous. Therefore, the officer's pat-down search of defendant was unlawful.
|
|||||
| State v. Griffith, Docket No. 29631, 2007 Opinion No. 9,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, March 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant did not adequately preserve for review the issue presented in his motion for a new trial, which alleged that he was unable to testify due to the trial court's error in admitting under Idaho R. Evid. 609 a prior conviction, by either testifying at trial or making an adequate of proof of the testimony he wished to give.
|
|||||
| State v. Reynolds, Docket No. 32374, 2007 Opinion No. 10,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, March 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Fourth Amendment, when officers were searching probationer's business next door, stop of defendant was unconstitutional and evidence should have been suppressed since (1) he was on his property when he was detained; (2) there was no nexus between him and probationer's criminal acts; and (3) officer did not have reasonable suspicion for stop.
|
|||||
| State v. Kremer, Docket No. 32029, 2007 Opinion No. 11,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, March 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for lewd conduct with a minor under Idaho Code Ann. § 18-1508 was upheld because evidence of prior sexual misconduct charges was properly admitted under Idaho R. Evid. 404(b) and the exclusion of evidence concerning the ultimate disposition of the prior charges was appropriate under Idaho R. Evid. 401.
|
|||||
| State v. Shafer, Docket No. 32774, 2007 Opinion No. 12,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, March 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Restitution order was affirmed because the parties intended the term regarding restitution in the plea agreement, to which defendant pled guilty to a felony charge of leaving the scene of an injury accident, to impose upon defendant the obligation to pay the losses that the other driver incurred in the accident.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
