 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Plant v. State, Docket No. 32094, 2006 Opinion No. 67,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, October 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counsel should have been appointed under Idaho Code Ann. § 19-4904 or a notice should have been given as to why a claim was frivolous because a postconviction petition and a letter raised the possibility of a valid claim that defense counsel overlooked grounds for suppression of evidence under Idaho Code Ann. § 19-4409 and the Fourth Amendment.
|
|||||
| State v. Bolen, Docket No. 31294, 2006 Opinion No. 68,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, October 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for a new trial under Idaho Crim. R. 34 was properly denied because defendant failed to raise the issue of juror inattentiveness or sleeping during the trial where several affidavits showed that he was aware of such; moreover, another affidavit from a spectator did not rise to the level of requiring a new trial based on general allegations.
|
|||||
| State v. Zuniga, Docket No. 30728, 2006 Opinion No. 69,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, October 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for the possession of methamphetamine in violation of Idaho Code Ann. § 37-2732(c) was appropriate because, when defendant disobeyed the detective's order to remain seated and instead fled the scene, he was no longer the subject of an unlawful detention and the drugs were not the fruit of the poisonous tree.
|
|||||
| State v. Anderson, Docket Nos. 32330 & 32331, 2006 Opinion No. 70,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, October 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for domestic battery and harassing witness under Idaho Code Ann. §§ 18-918(3)(b) and 18-2604(3) were affirmed because his waiver of right to counsel was knowing and voluntary where trial court warned him of hazards of pro se representation, asked him if he understood the risks, and explained the charges and available pleas.
|
|||||
| State v. Morrison, Docket No. 31424, 2006 Opinion No. 71,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, October 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant and two others agreed to take four calves from a farmer over the course of two nights, the aggregate value of the calves exceeded $ 150. The aggregate value of the calves was sufficient to establish the crime of grand theft under Idaho Code Ann. § 18-2407(1)(b)(7).
|
|||||
| Hauschulz v. State, Docket No. 31631, 2006 Opinion No. 72,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, October 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prisoner's document sufficed as a complaint because: (1) it alleged essential facts to state a claim that he was entitled to relief; (2) it explicitly stated that he had complied with notice requirements of Idaho Code Ann. § 6-905; and (3) second sentence of cover letter to court clerk characterized the attached filing as a "complaint/claim."
|
|||||
| Lamm v. State, Docket No. 32365, 2006 Opinion No. 73,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, October 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to disqualify a judge from hearing a post-conviction matter under Idaho R. Civ. P. 40(d)(1)(I)(ii) was not erroneously denied because there was no requirement for a hearing to allow for oral argument, notice under Idaho R. Civ. P. 7(b)(3)(D) was not required since oral argument was not scheduled, and the failure to wait 14 days was harmless.
|
|||||
| Point of Rocks Ranch, LLC v. Sun Valley Title Ins. Co. , Docket No. 31959, 2006 Opinion No. 94,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, October 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Two insured were not entitled to recover under a title insurance policy for an easement that was discovered after they conveyed the land to another party because coverage only continued while they had an interest therein; moreover, the warranty deed given by the insureds excluded easements, so they were not liable to a buyer either.
|
|||||
| Ponderosa Homesite Lot Owners v. Garfield Bay Resort, Inc., Docket No. 31945, 2006 Opinion No. 95,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, October 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Land owners' common law dedication of "lake access" for private use by lot owners in subdivision created easement in favor of lot owners. Creation of easement did not deprive land owners of ability to transfer title to "lake access" by virtue of dedication; thus, lot purchaser owned "lake access" subject to perpetual easement granted to lot owners.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
