Swisher v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there is no postponement of the statute of limitation for post-conviction actions until such time as the inmate discovers the law concerning the claim
• holding that failure to address request for counsel on claims unquestionably barred by the statute of limitation was harmless error
• holding that failure to address request for counsel on claims unquestionably barred by the statute of limitation is harmless error
• holding that, because petitioner’s post-conviction claims were time-barred, the petition was frivolous and the failure to timely rule on petitioner’s motion for counsel was harmless
• holding post-conviction action frivolous due to its claims being time-barred

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Judd v. State
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 2009-07-27· cited 22×
• Melton v. State
  Idaho Supreme Court· 2009-12-09· cited 19×
• Hust v. State
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 2009-06-23· cited 12×
• Dale Carter Shackelford v. State
  Idaho Supreme Court· 2016-05-27· cited 9×

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Wolfe
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1978-07-17· cited 302×
• Lawny Lamar Browning v. Richard A. Vernon, Director Ron McKinsey
  Ninth Circuit· 1995-01-10· cited 40×
• State v. Wade
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 1994-02-24· cited 29×
• Chapman v. State
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 1996-02-01· cited 12×
• Browning v. Vernon
  D. Idaho· 1994-09-30· cited 10×
• Henderson v. State
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 1992-12-29· cited 8×
• Bell v. State
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 1996-01-26· cited 8×
• Ortiz v. State
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 1993-07-01· cited 4×
• John v. State
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 1996-09-10· cited 2×