Idaho Court of Appeals

Last updated

The Idaho Court of Appeals is the intermediate-level appellate court for the state of Idaho. The court was created by statute by the Idaho Legislature [1] and began operations in 1982. [2]

Contents

Jurisdiction

The Court of Appeals hears cases assigned to it by the Idaho Supreme Court. The only exceptions to this jurisdiction are capital murder convictions and appeals from the Idaho Public Utilities Commission and the Idaho Industrial Commission (which administers the state's workers' compensation laws), [3] which must be heard by the Supreme Court. [4]

Judges

PositionNameAppt. byTook office / Length of serviceTerm expiresPrior positionLaw school
Chief Judge David Gratton
January 5, 2009
15 years, 4 months
January 2025
Private practice at Evans Keane (1987–2009) University of Idaho
Associate Judge Molly Huskey
July 2, 2015
8 years, 10 months
January 2029
District Judge in Canyon County, Idaho 3rd Judicial District (2011–15) University of Idaho
Associate JudgeJessica Lorello
October 3, 2017
6 years, 7 months
January 2025
Appellate Unit in the Criminal Division at the Idaho Attorney General's Office (2004–17) University of North Carolina
Associate JudgeMichael Tribe
January 23, 2024
4 months
January 2027
District Judge in Cassia County, Idaho 5th Judicial District (2017–24) University of Idaho

Succession of seats

Seat 1Established in 1980
NameTerm
Jesse Walters 1982–1997
Alan Schwartzman1997–2002
Sergio Gutierrez2002–2018
Amanda Brailsford 2019–2023
Michael Tribe2024-present
Seat 2Established in 1980
NameTerm
Donald Burnett1982–1990
Cathy Silak 1990–1993
Karen Lansing1993–2015
Molly Huskey2015–present
Seat 3Established in 1980
NameTerm
Roger Swanstrom1982–1993
Darrel Perry1993–2009
John Melanson2009–2017
Jessica Lorello2017–present
Seat 4Established in 2008
NameTerm
David Gratton2009–present

Related Research Articles

A writ of mandamus is a judicial remedy in the English and American common law system consisting of a court order that commands a government official or entity to perform an act it is legally required to perform as part of its official duties, or to refrain from performing an act the law forbids it from doing. Writs of mandamus are usually used in situations where a government official has failed to act as legally required or has taken a legally prohibited action. They cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against the law. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to take a specific action on applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other, then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.

<i>Official Code of Georgia Annotated</i> Compendium of all laws in the U.S. state of Georgia

The Official Code of Georgia Annotated or OCGA is the compendium of all laws in the state of Georgia. Like other state codes in the United States, its legal interpretation is subject to the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the state's constitution. It is to the state what the U.S. Code is to the federal government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit</span> Federal appellate court for the western U.S.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is the U.S. federal court of appeals that has appellate jurisdiction over the U.S. district courts in the following federal judicial districts:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sodomy laws in the United States</span> Aspect of United States law

The United States has inherited sodomy laws which constitutionally outlawed a variety of sexual acts that are deemed to be illegal, illicit, unlawful, unnatural and/or immoral from the colonial-era based laws in the 17th century. While they often targeted sexual acts between persons of the same sex, many sodomy-related statutes employed definitions broad enough to outlaw certain sexual acts between persons of different sexes, in some cases even including acts between married persons.

Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the administrators of estates cannot be named in a way that discriminates between sexes. In Reed v. Reed the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibited differential treatment based on sex.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Virginia</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Virginia

The Supreme Court of Virginia is the highest court in the Commonwealth of Virginia. It primarily hears direct appeals in civil cases from the trial-level city and county circuit courts, as well as the criminal law, family law and administrative law cases that are initially appealed to the Court of Appeals of Virginia. Established in 1779 as the Supreme Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of Virginia is one of the oldest continuously active judicial bodies in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of New South Wales</span> Superior court of New South Wales, Australia

The Supreme Court of New South Wales is the highest state court of the Australian State of New South Wales. It has unlimited jurisdiction within the state in civil matters, and hears the most serious criminal matters. Whilst the Supreme Court is the highest New South Wales court in the Australian court hierarchy, an appeal by special leave can be made to the High Court of Australia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ronald M. Gould</span> American judge (born 1946)

Ronald Murray Gould is an American lawyer and jurist serving as a U.S. circuit judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit since 1999.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Court of Australia</span> Australian superior federal court

The Federal Court of Australia is an Australian superior court which has jurisdiction to deal with most civil disputes governed by federal law, along with some summary and indictable criminal matters. Cases are heard at first instance mostly by single judges. In cases of importance, a full court comprising three judges can be convened upon determination by the Chief Justice. The Court also has appellate jurisdiction, which is mostly exercised by a Full Court comprising three judges, the only avenue of appeal from which lies to the High Court of Australia. In the Australian court hierarchy, the Federal Court occupies a position equivalent to the supreme courts of each of the states and territories. In relation to the other courts in the federal stream, it is superior to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia for all jurisdictions except family law. It was established in 1976 by the Federal Court of Australia Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States District Court for the District of Idaho</span> United States federal district court of Idaho

The United States District Court for the District of Idaho is the Federal district court whose jurisdiction comprises the state of Idaho. Court is held in Boise, Coeur d'Alene, and Pocatello. Cases from the District of Idaho are appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Montana Supreme Court</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Montana

The Montana Supreme Court is the highest court of the state court system in the U.S. state of Montana. It is established and its powers defined by Article VII of the 1972 Montana Constitution. It is primarily an appellate court which reviews civil and criminal decisions of Montana's trial courts of general jurisdiction and certain specialized legislative courts, only having original jurisdiction in a limited number of actions. The court's Chief Justice and six Associate Justices are elected by non-partisan, popular elections. The Montana Supreme Court meets in the Joseph P. Mazurek Building in Helena, Montana, the state's capital, an international style building completed in 1982 and named in the honor of former Montana Attorney General, Joseph P. Mazurek.

People v. Lee Kong, 95 Cal. 666 (1892), is a case in which the defendant claimed the "impossibility" defense to charges of assault, on the basis of a mistake in fact. The ultimate issue in this case is whether the defendant's actions and intent warrant criminal sanctions even though he failed to achieve a criminal act because the act itself was factually impossible to commit.

Same-sex marriage has been recognized in Montana since a federal district court ruled the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on November 19, 2014. Montana had previously denied marriage rights to same-sex couples by statute since 1997 and in its State Constitution since 2004. The state appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but before that court could hear the case, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all same-sex marriage bans in the country in Obergefell v. Hodges, mooting any remaining appeals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hate speech laws in Canada</span> Canadian laws relating to hate speech

Hate speech laws in Canada include provisions in the federal Criminal Code, as well as statutory provisions relating to hate publications in three provinces and one territory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Idaho</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of Idaho face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT people. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Idaho, and same-sex marriage has been legal in the state since October 2014. State statutes do not address discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBT people is illegal under federal law. A number of cities and counties provide further protections, namely in housing and public accommodations. A 2019 Public Religion Research Institute opinion poll showed that 71% of Idahoans supported anti-discrimination legislation protecting LGBT people, and a 2016 survey by the same pollster found majority support for same-sex marriage.

Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988), was an important decision by the United States Supreme Court on paid petition circulation. Colorado was one of several states with a process for citizens to propose initiatives for the ballot, which if passed became law. One of the requirements was to get the signatures of a significant number of registered Colorado electors. Colorado prohibited initiative sponsors from paying for the circulation of these petitions. The state argued this was necessary to "protect[...] the integrity of the initiative."

The Judiciary of California or the Judicial Branch of California is defined under the California Constitution as holding the judicial power of the state of California which is vested in the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal and the Superior Courts. The judiciary has a hierarchical structure with the California Supreme Court at the top, California Courts of Appeal as the primary appellate courts, and the California Superior Courts as the primary trial courts.

Criminal syndicalism has been defined as a doctrine of criminal acts for political, industrial, and social change. These criminal acts include advocation of crime, sabotage, violence, and other unlawful methods of terrorism. Criminal syndicalism laws were enacted to oppose economic radicalism.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Idaho since October 15, 2014. In May 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho found Idaho's statutory and state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional in the case of Latta v. Otter, but enforcement of that ruling was stayed pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling on October 7, 2014, though the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of the ruling, which was not lifted until October 15, 2014.

References

  1. "Idaho Code, Title 1, Chapter 24". Archived from the original on 2009-04-19. Retrieved 2009-02-19.
  2. Idaho Code § 1-2404
  3. Homepage of the Idaho Industrial Commission
  4. Idaho Code § 1-2406