Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Judge, Idaho Supreme Court · Born 1948
Peterson v. PRIVATE WILDERNESS, LLC
Idaho Supreme Court · 2012-03-23 · cited 3×
This case involved a mortgage foreclosure action filed by Fern Peterson against Private Wilderness, LLC, and related parties over alleged defaults on a 2005 real property sale agreement, along with a separate easement dispute between Private Wilderness and adjacent property owners Robert and Nancy Peterson that led to a third-party complaint. The district court granted Fern's motion for voluntary dismissal of the mortgage case, which also dismissed the third-party claims, and declined to designate a prevailing party or award fees. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the voluntary dismissal and the determination of no prevailing party under I.R.C.P. 41(a)(2), but vacated the denial of the Petersons' motion for reconsideration of their I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and 12(c) motions as moot, holding that the district court should have addressed those pending dispositive motions before dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings including potential attorney fees. The court awarded fees to Fern on appeal based on the commercial transaction but not to the Petersons on cross-appeal.
propertyprocedure
State v. PEPCORN
Idaho Supreme Court · 2012-03-23 · cited 81×
The case involved James Fredrick Pepcorn, Sr., who was convicted in a consolidated trial of multiple counts of lewd conduct with a minor, sexual abuse of a child, and rape against two nieces by marriage, based on incidents occurring in the early 1990s. Pepcorn appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting testimony under Idaho Rule of Evidence 404(b) from other family members about similar uncharged sexual misconduct and in consolidating the two cases for trial. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, concluding that the 404(b) evidence was admissible to prove a common scheme or plan to sexually abuse young relatives to whom Pepcorn had familial access, that it was not offered merely to show propensity, and that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.
criminal law
McCann v. McCann
Idaho Supreme Court · 2012-03-13 · cited 30×
This case concerns a dispute between brothers Ron and Bill McCann over the management of their family's closely held corporation, McCann Ranch & Livestock Company, Inc., where Ron alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Bill and the trustee of their mother's shares and sought equitable relief or dissolution under Idaho Code § 30-1-1430. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, classifying the claims as derivative and finding insufficient evidence of irreparable injury. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that one count stated an individual claim not subject to derivative-action demand requirements and that the alleged inability to recover approximately $600,000 satisfied the threatened irreparable injury element for dissolution; it also vacated prior discovery orders and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed the denial of attorney fees below and declined to award fees on appeal, finding the issues presented novel questions of law.
business & regulatoryprocedure
WATKINS CO., LLC v. Storms
Idaho Supreme Court · 2012-03-02 · cited 16×
This case involved a dispute over a 30-year commercial lease for a restaurant and microbrewery in Idaho Falls, where the landlord sued the tenants for failing to timely pay rent, provide sales figures, pay for additional storage space, and other breaches, seeking eviction and accelerated rent payments. The district court found the tenants had materially breached the lease, granted eviction and recovery for unjust enrichment on the storage space, enforced a jury trial waiver, rejected an accord and satisfaction defense, and ruled the accelerated rent provision unconscionable as a penalty. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the breach, eviction, and no-damages rulings on the accelerated rent clause (but on the alternative ground that the landlord failed to prove present value of damages), vacated the storage area damages due to an error in the district court's calculation, and found no prevailing party for attorney fees.
propertybusiness & regulatory
Oakes v. Boise Heart Clinic Physicians, PLLC
Idaho Supreme Court · 2012-03-02 · cited 26×
The case involved Dr. David Oakes suing his former employer, Boise Heart Clinic Physicians, PLLC, for unpaid compensation totaling over $25,000 under an employment contract, while the clinic counterclaimed for alleged overpayments exceeding $32,000. A jury awarded Oakes $2,043.92, after which the district court entered judgment for that amount but ruled that neither party prevailed for purposes of awarding costs or attorney fees. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court abused its discretion by failing to recognize Oakes as the prevailing party because he succeeded on his claim and defended against the counterclaim despite recovering less than sought. The court remanded for a determination of fees and costs and awarded Oakes attorney fees on appeal under Idaho Code § 12-120(3) as a commercial transaction arising from an employment contract.
labor & employmentprocedure
Gomez v. DURA MARK, INC.
Idaho Supreme Court · 2012-03-02 · cited 10×
Maria Gomez filed a worker's compensation claim seeking benefits for medical treatment of a back injury sustained while lifting boxes at Dura Mark, Inc. The Industrial Commission denied the claim after a hearing, determining that Gomez had not proven the treatment was causally related to the industrial accident based on conflicting expert medical opinions. Gomez moved for reconsideration to reopen the record and submit additional causation evidence, but the Commission denied the motion. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commission was not required to give specific notice that causation was at issue and did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen the record, as the parties' experts had disputed causation throughout the proceedings and Gomez had the opportunity to present evidence at the original hearing.
labor & employmentprocedure