Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Berry v. McFarland
Idaho Supreme Court · 2012-05-29 · cited 2×
This case involved a dispute over stock ownership and loans in the Captain’s Wheel Resort, Inc., where attorney Michael McFarland and his girlfriend Karen Zimmerman had financial dealings with Jerry Berry, a shareholder. A jury found that McFarland and Zimmerman breached fiduciary duties to Berry and his widow by acquiring stock below fair market value and making improper loans, awarding damages and cancelling debts. The district court granted a new trial, determining there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed this decision, agreeing that the evidence did not justify the jury's findings on the fiduciary duty claims.
business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability
James v. MERCEA
Idaho Supreme Court · 2012-04-26 · cited 4×
This case involved a buyer of residential property suing the sellers for failing to disclose on the required property disclosure form that the paved access to the garage was mostly on a public right-of-way rather than entirely her private driveway. The buyer alleged violations of the Idaho Property Condition Disclosure Act and fraud by nondisclosure. The district court granted summary judgment to the sellers, which the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the disclosure statute did not require revelation of the road or right-of-way status, and the fraud claim failed because there was no duty to disclose the information or knowing material misrepresentation under the elements of that tort. Attorney fees were awarded to the prevailing sellers under the parties' contract.
propertytorts & liability
In Re the Termination of the Parental Rights of Doe
Idaho Supreme Court · 2012-04-26 · cited 11×
This case involved an appeal by a mother challenging a magistrate court's judgment terminating her parental rights to her two minor children, who had been placed in state custody after allegations of abuse and neglect. The mother had stipulated to the children's placement under the Child Protective Act and agreed to a case plan requiring her to demonstrate parenting skills, secure safe housing, and obtain stable employment, but the magistrate court found she failed to complete these tasks. The court determined by clear and convincing evidence that the mother had neglected the children under multiple statutory definitions, was unable to discharge her parental responsibilities for a prolonged period, and that termination was in the children's best interests. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that substantial and competent evidence supported the magistrate's findings of fact and conclusions regarding neglect and the children's welfare. The court did not need to address alternative statutory grounds for termination once one was upheld.
family law
ABOLAFIA v. Reeves
Idaho Supreme Court · 2012-04-26 · cited 4×
In this case, a guardian ad litem appointed for children in a divorce custody modification proceeding appealed his termination after the parents reached a stipulation resolving their dispute and the magistrate court accepted the agreement and ended the appointment. The district court dismissed the appeal for lack of standing and awarded attorney fees to the parents under Idaho Code section 12-121. On review, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the guardian ad litem had no standing to appeal the termination or custody order because he served at the pleasure of the court and the appeal was brought without any supporting authority or foundation. The court noted that the guardian had approved the visitation schedule as in the children's best interests but objected primarily to not being consulted, and that the appeal appeared motivated by personal slight rather than any legal right.
family lawprocedure
City of Pocatello v. Idaho
Idaho Supreme Court · 2012-03-22 · cited 17×
This case arose from the Snake River Basin Adjudication in which the City of Pocatello challenged recommendations by the Idaho Department of Water Resources regarding its water rights claims. Pocatello sought to treat its wells as alternate points of diversion for both its groundwater rights and four surface water rights from creeks, to adjust the priority dates for two groundwater rights based on earlier use, and to contest the classification of one right as irrigation. The district court, affirming the Special Master, held that the wells could serve as alternate points of diversion for the interconnected groundwater rights only if conditions preserved original priority dates and quantities, that the surface water rights could not use the wells because the sources were separate, that the irrigation classification was proper, and that no earlier priority dates were proven. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that Idaho Code section 42-1425 does not permit changing the source of a water right and that Pocatello failed to present sufficient evidence to support earlier priority dates or other modifications.
environmentproperty
Morrison v. Northwest Nazarene University
Idaho Supreme Court · 2012-03-22 · cited 8×
Paul Morrison sued Northwest Nazarene University for negligence after suffering severe injuries in a fall from a climbing wall during a required employer team-building event. Several days earlier, his employer had directed him to sign a hold harmless agreement prepared by the university that waived liability for any negligence by the university or its employees. The district court granted summary judgment to the university on the ground that the agreement barred the claim. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that exculpatory agreements are enforceable absent a statutory public duty or obvious bargaining-power disadvantage that left the plaintiff with no practical choice but to participate, neither of which was present.
torts & liabilityprocedure