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 Jessica Lorello
October 3, 2017
5 years, 10 months
January 2025
Appellate Unit in the Criminal Division at the Idaho Attorney General's Office (2004–17) University of North Carolina
Associate JudgeDavid Gratton
January 5, 2009
14 years, 6 months
January 2025
private practice at Evans Keane (1987–2009) University of Idaho
Associate Judge Molly Huskey
July 2, 2015
8 years, 1 month
January 2029
District Judge in Canyon County, Idaho 3rd Judicial District (2011–15) University of Idaho
Associate Judgevacant

Succession of seats

Seat 1Established in 1980
NameTerm
Jesse Walters 1982–1997
Alan Schwartzman1997–2002
Sergio Gutierrez2002–2018
Amanda Brailsford 2019–2023
vacant
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

Mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do, and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. 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 U.S. state of Georgia. Like other U.S. state codes, its legal interpretation is subject to the United States Constitution, the United States Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the state's constitution. It is to the state what the United States Code (U.S.C.) 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

Sodomy laws in the United States, which outlawed a variety of sexual acts, were inherited from colonial laws in the 17th century. While they often targeted sexual acts between persons of the same sex, many 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. It is one of the oldest continuously active judicial bodies in the United States. It was known as the Supreme Court of Appeals until 1970, when it was renamed the Supreme Court of Virginia because it has original as well as appellate jurisdiction.

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

The Indiana Supreme Court, established by Article 7 of the Indiana Constitution, is the highest judicial authority in the state of Indiana. Located in Indianapolis, the Court's chambers are in the north wing of the Indiana Statehouse.

<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">Federal Court of Australia</span> Australian superior federal court

The Federal Court of Australia is an Australian superior court of record 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.

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."

Idaho v. United States, 533 U.S. 262 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the United States, not the state of Idaho, held title to lands submerged under Lake Coeur d'Alene and the St. Joe River, and that the land was held in trust for the Coeur d'Alene Tribe as part of its reservation, and in recognition of the importance of traditional tribal uses of these areas for basic food and other needs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of California</span>

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 in the case of Latta v. Otter found Idaho's statutory and state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, 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