Roger R. Burdick

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel Fuchs applied multiple times between 1994 and 1995 for positions on Idaho city liquor license priority waiting lists maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol Beverage Control. In 2009 the agency removed his duplicate listings under a 2006 rule allowing only one position per city list and refunded the associated fees. Fuchs petitioned for judicial review and declaratory relief, arguing the removal was an unpromulgated rule that violated the Idaho APA and deprived him of due process. The Idaho Supreme Court held that exhaustion of remedies was not required because no administrative process existed, but affirmed dismissal on the ground that Fuchs possessed no property interest in multiple listings. The court reasoned that neither the legislature nor the agency had created such an interest, so procedural due process protections did not apply.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved property owners Ismael Chavez and Dolores Mercado who challenged Canyon County's use of a $500 flat fee in its notices of pending tax deeds for delinquent property taxes, arguing it violated Idaho Code section 63-1005(4)(d)'s requirement for an itemized statement of costs and fees. The district court converted their declaratory judgment action into a petition for judicial review, ruled the flat fee invalid, and addressed related motions including one for contempt. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court reversed the conversion, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the petition for judicial review, but declared the notices deficient and void under the statute's plain meaning requiring itemization rather than a summary flat fee. The court also upheld the district court's decision that the contempt motion was moot and denied attorney fees to the pro se appellants.

propertytaxesprocedure

The case involved Simona Lisa Manzanares's conditional guilty plea to recruiting a criminal gang member under Idaho Code § 18-8504(1)(a), in exchange for dismissal of a related charge for supplying a firearm to a gang member under § 18-8505, following her alleged activities with the East Side Locas gang in 2006-2007. Manzanares appealed the resulting judgment, arguing that the recruiting provision was unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment right to free association, that the firearm provision was overbroad, vague, and violated Second Amendment rights, and that her conviction violated ex post facto clauses along with other procedural challenges to the information and evidence. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the recruiting statute was not facially or as-applied overbroad because it targeted knowing conduct aimed at active participation in criminal gangs rather than mere association, and rejecting the remaining constitutional and procedural claims. A dissent argued that the recruiting provision lacked a specific intent requirement and could not be saved by narrowing construction.

criminal lawfree speechguns

This case involved Dennis Current's appeal from the Idaho Industrial Commission's denial of unemployment benefits after he left his job as a shop foreman at Haddons Fencing. Current had selected "lack of work / laid off" on his benefits application despite evidence that he had quit, and the Department of Labor determined this was a willful false statement that made him ineligible. The Industrial Commission upheld the denial following a hearing, and Current challenged both the finding of willful misrepresentation and the hearing officer's decision not to contact one of his proposed witnesses. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that substantial and competent evidence supported the Commission's findings on the false statement and that the hearing officer had not abused her discretion in excluding irrelevant witness testimony.

labor & employmentprocedure

In State v. Delling, the defendant was charged with two counts of second-degree murder after killing two people and entered conditional guilty pleas to preserve his challenge to Idaho Code § 18-207, which abolished the insanity defense. Delling argued that the statute violated his due process rights under the Idaho Constitution as well as his Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution by preventing him from raising mental condition as a defense. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, upholding the statute's constitutionality based on its prior ruling in State v. Searcy and finding that no specific insanity test is mandated by due process. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing concurrent fixed life sentences after properly weighing the defendant's mental health issues against the need to protect society.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved a dispute between Pines Grazing Association and Flying Joseph Ranch over a 2005 real estate purchase agreement for a ranch, including an 80-acre parcel acquired via public auction, and a related grazing lease, with claims arising from an oral agreement that Pines Grazing would refrain from bidding at the auction. The Supreme Court of Idaho reversed the jury verdict upholding the oral agreement not to bid, holding it illegal and unenforceable under the Sherman Act and Idaho Code § 48-104 as an antitrust violation involving bid suppression. The court affirmed the jury's determination that Pines Grazing did not breach the grazing lease and adjusted attorney fee awards accordingly, remanding for further proceedings on fees related to the lease issue.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In State v. Miller, the defendant was convicted after pleading guilty to burglary, assault with intent to commit robbery, methamphetamine possession, and a persistent violator enhancement, following an incident in which he entered a family's home while armed and under the influence of drugs. The appeal raised two main issues: whether the absence of the persistent violator enhancement from the formal information deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction, and whether the enhanced life sentences were excessive given the defendant's mental health history. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the court had jurisdiction because the defendant received notice of the enhancement and entered an unconditional guilty plea that waived due process objections. It further held that the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion, as it properly considered the defendant's mental health evaluation under Idaho Code sections 19-2521 and 19-2523 alongside factors such as community protection and deterrence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a lawsuit by Dr. Paul Montalbano against Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center and others, stemming from the suspension of his medical staff privileges, with claims including breach of fiduciary duties and defamation. The appeal concerns the district court's protective order shielding certain peer review documents from discovery. The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the protective order, ruling that the documents are protected by the peer review privilege under Idaho Code § 39-1392b. The court reasoned that the privilege applies to the proceedings, Montalbano did not sufficiently demonstrate waiver or bad faith to overcome it, and the hospital had legitimate reasons for the suspension related to disruptive behavior.

healthcareprocedure

This case involved a dispute between neighboring property owners, the Belstlers and the Conines, over two roadways on the Belstlers' land that the Conines used to access their property. The district court initially found express easements for both roads based on a 1988 recorded agreement, but on reconsideration held that the agreement merged into a later deed and thus no express easements existed; it also addressed related claims about prescriptive easements and relocation of access. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court reversed the merger ruling, holding that the Easement Agreement created valid express easements that were not extinguished, affirmed the denial of attorney fees while upholding an award of costs to the Conines, and affirmed limits on relocating one easement. The core reasoning centered on the effect of recording the mutual easement agreement prior to the deed and the absence of any clear intent for merger that would eliminate the easements.

property

William Rigoli appealed the Industrial Commission's ruling that he was ineligible for unemployment benefits after being discharged from his job as a toy department manager at Wal-Mart for using foul language toward an assistant manager and leaving before completing his shift. The Commission found that Rigoli's conduct amounted to misconduct connected with his employment, relying on testimony that the profanity was used in the presence of other employees and comparing the facts to the precedent in Pimley v. Best Values, Inc. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that substantial and competent evidence supported the misconduct finding, that the employer met its burden of proof, and that the Commission properly weighed the credibility of conflicting witness accounts regarding whether other employees were present.

labor & employment

This case involved a bail bond company, Two Jinn, Inc., that posted a $500 bond for defendant Rosendo Arriago Navarro after his arrest for driving without privileges. When Navarro failed to appear for sentencing, the bond was forfeited, and Two Jinn later moved to set aside the forfeiture, claiming impossibility of performance due to Navarro's deportation to Mexico or alternatively that justice did not require enforcement under former Idaho Criminal Rule 46(e)(4). The magistrate court denied the motion, the district court affirmed after a de novo hearing, and the Idaho Supreme Court upheld that decision. The court reasoned that the impossibility defense was unavailable because Navarro's deportation resulted from his own known status as an illegal immigrant, which was a foreseeable risk at the time the bond was posted rather than an unforeseen supervening act.

criminal lawprocedureimmigration

This case involved a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the family of Maria Aguilar against Dr. Nathan Coonrod and his employer after she died from a pulmonary embolus that went undiagnosed despite multiple medical visits. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants breached the standard of care in failing to identify and treat her condition. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of a motion for new trial, upholding rulings that barred the defendants from questioning the plaintiffs' expert about the negligence of other doctors who had settled or been dismissed, from reading portions of the expert's deposition into the record, and interpreting the statutory cap on non-economic damages under I.C. § 6-1603 as applying separately to each plaintiff rather than collectively.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

The case involved Reed Taylor suing AIA Services Corporation, its subsidiary, and related individuals to recover amounts owed under promissory notes from a 1995 Stock Redemption Agreement and a later restructure agreement, under which the corporation was to purchase Taylor's majority shares for $7.5 million. The district court granted partial summary judgment dismissing six of Taylor's causes of action, ruling that the agreement was illegal and unenforceable because it violated the 1995 version of I.C. § 30-1-6, which restricted corporations to redeeming shares only with earned surplus or, in limited cases, capital surplus. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the agreement did not comply with the statute's requirements and that contracts violating this provision—intended to protect minority shareholders and creditors from depletion of corporate assets—are unenforceable, rejecting Taylor's arguments for enforceability under other theories. The court also addressed cross-appeals seeking broader dismissal but upheld the partial judgment based on the statutory violation and associated public policy.

business & regulatory

In Maynard v. Nguyen, Janice Maynard sued the Nguyens under the Idaho Consumer Protection Act after they removed her belongings from a trailer home she was renting with an option to purchase, seeking actual damages and enhanced penalties. After the Nguyens failed to timely respond to the complaint, the district court entered a default judgment, but later granted their motion to set it aside under I.R.C.P. 60(b)(6) based on unique and compelling circumstances. The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed, concluding that the district court acted within its discretion when it determined that Maynard's attorney's failure to disclose to the court a letter from the Nguyens (which asserted a meritorious defense of abandonment) justified relief to allow the case to be decided on the merits.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory