Skip to main content

State v. Anderson

Citations

  • 175 P.3d 788
  • 145 Idaho 99
  • 2008 Ida. LEXIS 3

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that the magistrate did not abuse his discretion by not excluding expert testimony from trial even though it was not properly disclosed because the aggrieved party “was unable to show any prejudice as a result” of the violation
  • holding that the magistrate did not abuse his discretion by not excluding expert testimony from trial even though it was not properly disclosed because the aggrieved party \was unable to show any prejudice as a result\ of the violation
  • “[T]he Intoxilyzer 5000 was approved by the Idaho State Police almost two decades ago and is still in use.”
  • “[T]he Intoxilyzer 5000 was approved by the Idaho State Police almost two decades ago and is still in use.”
  • “The decision whether to impose discovery sanctions is within the discretion of the trial court.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Eismann, Burdick, Jones, Horton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

22 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.