 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lewis v. DOT, Docket No. 31833, 2006 Opinion No. 56,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, August 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order from the State of Idaho DOT denying plaintiff's application to renew his driver's license for failure to provide his social security number, as required by Idaho Code Ann. § 49-306(2), was upheld where the State of Idaho was required by 42 U.S.C.S. § 666(a)(13) to record the social security number of all driver's license applicants.
|
|||||
| Holladay v. Lindsay, Docket No. 31894, 2006 Opinion No. 57A,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, August 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action seeking to recover music royalties, a musician was not entitled to compound interest under Idaho Code § 28-22-104(1). Moreover, he was also unable to recover such in his unjust enrichment claim because, even though he was unable to determine the amount a recipient earned, there was insufficient information provided on market rates.
|
|||||
| State v. McMurry, Docket No. 32045, 2006 Opinion No. 58,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, August 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the prosecutor violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by commenting on her failure to testify, the district court erred by not declaring a mistrial. The defendant's conviction for aggravated battery under Idaho Code Ann. §§ 18-903(a), 18-907(b), was vacated.
|
|||||
| State v. Rogers, Docket No. 31264, 2006 Opinion No. 59,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, August 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Due process was not implicated in a case where defendant was terminated from participating in a drug court treatment plan due to various violations and his act of soliciting females in the courtroom for his allegedly illegal female escort service; rather, defendant was bound contractually to the treatment regimen under Idaho Code Ann. § 19-5602(2).
|
|||||
| Franck-Teel v. State, Docket No. 32180, 2006 Opinion No. 60,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, August 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of an application for post-conviction relief was inappropriate as to three of six grounds asserted because the inmate was not given adequate notice under Idaho Code Ann. § 19-4906(b); an attempt to respond to the deficient motion to dismiss did not absolve the district court of its duty to comply with § 19-4906(b) either.
|
|||||
| Idaho Conservation League, Inc. v. Idaho State Dep't of Agric., Docket No. 31751, 2006 Opinion No. 85,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, August 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Two nutrition management plans (NMP) of certain feedlots were subject to disclosure under Idaho Code Ann. § 9-338(1) because they were public records that were not exempt; however, two other NMPs that were filed via a state computer system were not subject to disclosure because they were exempt under Idaho Code Ann. § 22-2718(4).
|
|||||
| State v. DeFranco, Docket No. 31801, 2006 Opinion No. 61,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, September 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court vacated defendant's DUI conviction in violation of Idaho Code § 18-8004(1)(a) as a state trooper did not comply with the requirements in Idaho Admin. Code r. 11.03.01.013(.03) in that he did not observe defendant for more than 15 minutes before administering the breathalyzer test.
|
|||||
| State v. Clapper, Docket Nos. 31578 & 31579, 2006 Opinion No. 62,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, September 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court's authority to impose cumulative sentences as well as suspend a sentence and impose probation, combined with the authority in Idaho Code Ann. § 19-2601, permitted the trial court to impose a term of probation against defendant that was consecutive to a term of incarceration announced in a previous, unrelated case.
|
|||||
| State v. Bettwieser, Docket No. 32083, 2006 Opinion No. 63,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, September 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which defendant was convicted for committing the infraction of following too closely, small claims exception of Idaho Code Ann. § 3-104 did not authorize defendant's father, a nonlawyer, to represent defendant in the proceedings. In prosecuting defendant, the State did not bring a claim in the nature of a civil action for damages.
|
|||||
| State v. Rector, Docket No. 31982, 2006 Opinion No. 64,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, September 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the grant of the trial court's motion to suppress evidence as it determined that defendant's production of a baggie of methamphetamine was not voluntary given that she had been stopped by the deputies at night, frisked, and then subjected to further interrogation before they asked her what was in her pocket.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
