Daniel T. Eismann

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

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

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

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

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

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

In State v. Koivu, the State appealed a district court order suppressing methamphetamine found during a search incident to an arrest based on an invalid warrant of attachment issued by a Boundary County court without jurisdiction. The State asked the Idaho Supreme Court to overrule its prior decision in State v. Guzman and apply the federal Leon good-faith exception to violations of Article I, section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The court declined to overrule Guzman, holding that Idaho's exclusionary rule is a constitutionally mandated remedy under the state constitution that serves purposes beyond merely deterring police misconduct, consistent with earlier precedents like State v. Arregui. It therefore affirmed the suppression order.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an employee of an assisted living facility who was fired after repeatedly refusing a direct order from company executives to disclose the source of a rumor she had heard about another company facility closing. The employee applied for unemployment benefits, which were initially granted but then denied by an appeals examiner on grounds of misconduct; the Industrial Commission reversed that denial and awarded benefits, finding the refusal was not misconduct connected to her employment. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court reversed the Commission, holding that the employee's insubordination occurred in connection with her employment because the rumor concerned company business and was raised during a work-related conversation. The Court further reasoned that a single instance of refusing a supervisor's order constituted misconduct under the Employment Security Law, either as a violation of the employer's reasonable rules or a disregard of expected standards of behavior, and that no pattern of misconduct or actual harm to the employer was required.

labor & employment

This case involved a dispute between neighboring property owners over an easement for a shared driveway. In 1952, the predecessors to the Campbells purchased an easement across the Boyds' property (later owned by the Mannings) to access a public street, with the agreement specifying a driveway for ingress and egress. After the Mannings acquired the property in 2008 and sought to relocate or alter the driveway under Idaho Code section 55-313, the district court ruled they could not do so. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that relocation would injure the Campbells' property and that there was no evidence the current driveway's location or width differed from the one originally constructed and used by the parties' predecessors. The court reasoned that the original construction fixed the easement's dimensions, which could not be changed without consent or proof of alteration.

property

This case involved a buyer who entered a contract to purchase a to-be-constructed townhouse, made $750,000 in nonrefundable earnest money payments, and later rescinded the contract due to the seller's failure to provide clear title after the seller's bankruptcy and unpaid construction liens. The buyer sued to foreclose a vendee's lien on the property with priority over the bank's recorded deed of trust securing a construction loan to the seller, also seeking interest on the payments and attorney fees under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c). The Supreme Court of Idaho reversed the district court's judgment in part, holding that the vendee's lien does not secure prejudgment interest on the earnest money, and affirmed the remainder, including the lien's priority over the bank's interest based on the bank's knowledge of the purchase contract and the award of attorney fees for the bank's denied discovery responses.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

Burns Holdings, LLC sought approval to build a 75-foot concrete batch plant on property in Teton County that was subject to the City of Driggs zoning rules, which capped building heights at 45 feet unless a conditional use permit (CUP) was granted. After the county denied the CUP application, Burns Holdings petitioned for judicial review. The district court upheld the denial, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed on the ground that Idaho’s Local Land Use Planning Act permits height-limit waivers only through a variance, not a CUP, rendering the contrary ordinance provision void. Because Burns Holdings neither sought nor satisfied the statutory variance criteria, the county’s denial of the CUP was proper.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by several Idaho counties and cities to the legislative redistricting plan (Plan L 87) adopted by the Idaho Commission on Redistricting following the 2010 census. The Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the plan was invalid because it violated Article III, section 5 of the Idaho Constitution, which limits the division of counties in creating legislative districts. The core reasoning was that the plan divided more counties than necessary to satisfy the one-person, one-vote requirements under the U.S. Constitution, as the commission could have created a plan with fewer county splits while still complying with federal equal protection standards. The court directed the commission to reconvene and adopt a revised plan.

electionsfederal power

This case involved a dispute between an irrigation ditch company and landowners whose pumping and surface irrigation on a bluff allegedly caused landslides damaging the company's canal. The company sought a declaratory judgment and injunction to restrict the landowners' water use, leading to a preliminary injunction with monitoring conditions; the landowners contested violations and related attorney fee awards. The district court ruled that the landowners were not the sole prevailing parties and denied their request for fees. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed that determination, finding no abuse of discretion in the prevailing-party analysis and no basis to treat the action as a condemnation proceeding exempt from standard fee rules. The court awarded attorney fees to the company on appeal because the landowners' challenge lacked reasoned argument showing error.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involved Bob Henry's public records requests to Canyon County and its prosecuting attorney's office seeking documents related to a contract under which former prosecutor John Bujak provided misdemeanor prosecution services to the City of Nampa using county resources. The county produced some contracts and resolutions but stated that other requested records, such as invoices and accounting details, did not exist in its possession. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment denying the requests, holding that the records qualified as public records but that the county respondents could not be compelled to produce them because they had never prepared, owned, used, or retained them. The court reasoned that the Public Records Act does not require agencies to obtain or create records they do not possess, and only the former prosecutor had access to the disputed materials.

procedurecriminal law

This case arose from a medical malpractice claim filed by Kristeen Elliott against Dr. Joseph Verska and the Spine Institute of Idaho after back surgeries performed in 2007. The central issue was whether the defendants had been properly served with process within the six-month period required by Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a)(2) following the filing of the complaint and amended complaint. The district court dismissed the claims against those defendants for insufficient service, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed that judgment. The court reasoned that service on a receptionist was invalid because she lacked authority to accept it, the plaintiff had not demonstrated good cause for missing the deadline, and due diligence was absent even after new counsel became involved. An amended complaint did not restart the service clock in a manner that excused the delay.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involved a tenured engineering professor at Idaho State University who sued the university and several administrators, alleging that they retaliated against him for publishing newspaper criticisms of university administrations over several years, in violation of his First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; he also claimed breach of his employment contract and defamation. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, applying the Garcetti and Connick standards to conclude that the speech did not support a viable retaliation claim and that other grounds supported dismissal of the remaining claims. The court vacated the denial of attorney fees to the university on the breach of contract claim, holding that it involved a commercial transaction under Idaho Code § 12-120(3), and remanded for determination of those fees while denying fees to the other defendants.

free speechlabor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a personal injury lawsuit filed by Beatriz Nava after a traffic accident in which a truck driven by Christian Rivas-Del Toro, who worked for Cranney Farms, struck her vehicle. Nava alleged that Cranney Farms was liable as the registered owner of the truck driven with its permission and because it had recklessly permitted an unsafe vehicle to be operated. The district court granted summary judgment to Cranney Farms, holding that the driver was an employee acting outside the course and scope of employment under Idaho Code section 6-1607. The Idaho Supreme Court vacated the judgment, ruling that the scope-of-employment defense did not apply to the claims as pled and that the summary judgment motion failed to address with particularity the claim of negligent maintenance or permitting an unsafe vehicle.

torts & liabilityprocedurelabor & employment

This case involved a physician whose hospital privileges were not renewed after peer review processes, leading him and his practice to sue the hospital and two doctors for claims including bad faith, interference with economic advantage, defamation, emotional distress, and due process violations, while seeking an injunction to restore privileges. During discovery, the plaintiffs sought information about the peer review proceedings, but the hospital objected based on statutory privilege. The district court denied the motion to compel and granted a protective order, ruling that Idaho Code § 39-1392b unambiguously shields all peer review records from discovery. On permissive appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute's plain terms apply to this lawsuit and protect the records without exception in these circumstances. The court reasoned that the privilege is clear and unambiguous, and the plaintiffs failed to show any waiver or other basis to overcome it.

healthcareprocedure

In Tarbet v. J.R. Simplot Co., the case concerned a long-term employee who suffered a 2007 workplace accident injuring his cervical spine, leading to total permanent disability after two surgeries. The Industrial Commission ruled that the employer was liable for all income benefits because the final injury alone rendered the claimant totally disabled under the odd-lot doctrine, without apportioning liability to the Industrial Special Indemnity Fund for pre-existing conditions like rheumatoid arthritis or PTSD. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the Commission's findings on the claimant's pre-accident work capacity and the effects of the last injury. The court also upheld the Commission's credibility determinations and partial reliance on expert testimony despite minor inconsistencies.

labor & employment

In State v. Carson, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder for killing his three-month-old son and received a fixed life sentence after the jury found he exhibited utter disregard for human life as an aggravating circumstance. On appeal, the defendant challenged the trial court's exclusion of alleged impeachment evidence against the child's mother, statements by the prosecutor during closing argument, the jury instruction defining "utter disregard," and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the aggravating factor. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the trial court did not err in excluding the evidence, that the prosecutor's comments did not constitute misconduct, that the jury instruction was proper, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of utter disregard for human life.

criminal lawprocedure