State v. Irving

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Slaninka

    171 Idaho 949 (Idaho Ct. App. 2023)

    A trial court considering a motion to extend a filing deadline may consider the effect that its decision would have on the efficient operation of the judicial system. State v. Irving , 118 Idaho 673, 675, 799 P.2d 471, 473 (Ct. App. 1990). Nevertheless, the district court was not obligated to weigh judicial economy considerations above all else.

  2. State v. Caldrer

    Docket No. 45081 (Idaho Ct. App. Jul. 3, 2018)

    A court considering a motion to extend a filing deadline may consider the effect that its decision would have on the efficient operation of the court system. State v. Irving, 118 Idaho 673, 675, 799 P.2d 471, 473 (Ct. App. 1990). --------

  3. State v. Garner

    834 P.2d 888 (Idaho Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 1 times

    A denial of a motion for a continuance is not an abuse of discretion absent a showing that substantial rights of the defendant have been prejudiced. State v. Irving, 118 Idaho 673, 675, 799 P.2d 471, 473 (Ct.App. 1990) (denial of motion for continuance not an abuse of discretion where defendant wanted continuance in order to file an untimely motion to suppress), citing State v. Laws, 94 Idaho 200, 202, 485 P.2d 144, 146 (1971). When an exercise of discretion is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry. The sequence of the inquiry is: (1) whether the lower court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the court acted within the outer boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to specific choices; and (3) whether the court reached its decision by an exercise of reason.

  4. Matter of Cummings

    800 P.2d 687 (Idaho Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 4 times

    Good cause under I.C. ยง 18-8002(4)(b) for a continuance of this suspension hearing may be found in the needs of the efficient operation of the court system. See State v. Sindak, 116 Idaho 185, 774 P.2d 895 (1989) cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 1125, 107 L.Ed.2d 1032 (1990); State v. Irving, 118 Idaho 673, 799 P.2d 471 (Ct.App. 1990). Cummings' motion to disqualify the magistrate was filed on May 5, 1989, one week prior to the hearing set for May 12 before the first magistrate. It was not unreasonable for the hearing to have been extended to May 24 given the need to select and assign an available magistrate, and to set a hearing date before the newly-assigned magistrate.