State v. Kerrigan

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 defendant’s sentence was not illegal, but neither it nor the district court was required to make a factual determination or review anything beyond the defendant’s judgment of conviction and the statutory language of the enhancements
• holding that the defendant's sentence was not illegal, but neither it nor the district court was required to make a factual determination or review anything beyond the defendant's judgment of conviction and the statutory language of the enhancements
• recognizing multiple enhancements are proper absent statutory language prohibiting such

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Clements
  Idaho Supreme Court· 2009-10-15· cited 137×
• Crabtree v. State
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 2006-11-27· cited 17×
• State v. Lewis
  Idaho Supreme Court· 2007-03-29· cited 11×
• State v. Passons
  Idaho Supreme Court· 2018-05-01· cited 10×
• State v. Peregrina
  Idaho Supreme Court· 2011-09-07· cited 8×
• State v. Kramer
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 2008-07-23· cited 7×
• James Dee Olsen v. State
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 2014-08-13· cited 3×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Jakoski
  Idaho Supreme Court· 2003-10-29· cited 101×
• Pizzuto v. State
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1995-08-03· cited 58×
• State v. Barros
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1998-04-01· cited 24×
• Northland Insurance v. Boise's Best Autos & Repairs
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1998-05-19· cited 16×
• Fisk v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
  Idaho Supreme Court· 2005-03-04· cited 10×
• State v. Kerrigan
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 1993-03-29· cited 4×