Legal Opinion

Stuart v. State

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided May 10, 2010No. 34200PublishedCited by 42 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HORTON, Justice.

Gene Frances Stuart (Stuart) appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his fourth petition for post-conviction relief as untimely under I.C. § 19-2719. In this appeal, Stuart argues that I.C. § 19-2719 is inapplicable to him as it does not retroactively apply to his case, it is an ex post facto law, it violates the Idaho Constitution’s separation of powers, it violates his equal protection and due process rights under the Idaho and U.S. Constitutions, it is an unconstitutional suspension of the right of habeas corpus, and it is unconstitutionally vague. We dismiss the…

2Cases cited59 opinions

  1. Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Ring v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  3. Strickler v. GreeneSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  4. Banks v. DretkeSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  5. Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981

54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by42 opinions

  1. State v. Timothy Alan DunlapIdaho Supreme Court · 2013
  2. State v. DraperIdaho Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Timothy Alan Dunlap v. StateIdaho Supreme Court · 2015
  4. CDA Dairy Queen, Inc. v. State Insurance FundIdaho Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Fields v. StateIdaho Supreme Court · 2011

37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API