Joel Horton

This case involved a products liability claim by J & J Calf Ranch against Land O'Lakes, alleging that defective milk replacer caused the deaths of over 100 calves due to scours. After two trials, a jury found in favor of J & J on its breach of the implied warranty of merchantability claim and awarded damages reduced by 40 percent for the plaintiffs' negligence. The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the verdict, holding that it was supported by substantial competent evidence and that challenges to expert testimony had been waived. The court also affirmed the district court's award of attorney fees, finding no abuse of discretion in the calculation, and denied fees on appeal to both parties.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Stonebrook Construction, LLC seeking to foreclose a mechanic's lien on property owned by the Ashbys after performing construction work there; Chase Home Finance, as successor beneficiary under a deed of trust on the property, defended by arguing the lien was invalid. The district court granted summary judgment to Chase, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Stonebrook was barred from enforcing the lien because it failed to register as a contractor under the Idaho Contractor Registration Act. Stonebrook's arguments that Chase lacked standing to raise the registration issue, that one member's prior registration sufficed, or that substantial compliance applied were rejected. The court reasoned that the Act requires strict registration by the entity performing the work to protect the public, and the Legislature intended to preclude unregistered contractors from lien enforcement regardless of the outcome's harshness in this instance.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved Roberta Shore suing her former divorce attorney, Nicholas Bokides, for legal malpractice after he failed to notify creditor McCormick International USA that she would no longer personally guarantee advances to Bear River Equipment, the business awarded to her ex-husband William under the divorce decree. Bokides admitted the breach of duty but contended that Roberta failed to mitigate damages by not enforcing the decree's hold-harmless provision against William. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment for Roberta, concluding that substantial competent evidence supported the finding that she reasonably viewed enforcement efforts against William as futile because he was judgment-proof, and that her recoverable damages were properly limited to obligations arising after the divorce. The court also held that the underlying transaction was not commercial, precluding attorney fees under the relevant statute.

family lawtorts & liability

The case involved a lawsuit by Jose Carrillo, individually and as parent of minor Nayeli Carrillo and representative of the estate of Marisela Lycan, against Boise Tire Company, alleging that negligent tire rotation caused a vehicle accident resulting in Marisela's death, Jose's injuries, and testing of Nayeli. A jury found Boise Tire's conduct reckless and awarded damages; the district court denied Boise Tire's motion for a new trial (after remitting one award) and rejected reductions for subrogation interests or social security benefits under I.C. § 6-1606. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a new trial and the rulings on damage reductions and attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(3), but vacated the judgment as to Jose's personal injury award and remanded for reduction by the value of social security benefits already received.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Vermont Trotter, a homeowner in default on his loan secured by a deed of trust naming MERS as beneficiary, sued Bank of New York Mellon, MERS, and ReconTrust to halt a nonjudicial foreclosure under Idaho Code § 45-1505, alleging the defendants lacked standing because they had not shown an interest in both the deed and the note and that MERS had no authority to assign the deed. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that standing is not a requirement for initiating nonjudicial foreclosures under the statute and that Trotter waived his arguments regarding MERS's authority to assign the deed by failing to provide supporting authority or a complete record. The court also found Trotter's insurance-payment argument waived and deemed the discovery motion moot after dismissal.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a negligence claim by JoAn and Fred Ball against the City of Blackfoot after JoAn slipped and fell on ice that had accumulated on a municipal pool sidewalk, suffering injuries; the Balls alleged the city failed to keep the sidewalk clear and that its landscaping and snow-piling practices caused unnatural ice buildup. The district court granted summary judgment to the city, relying on Pearson v. Boise City to hold that property owners have no liability for natural accumulations of snow or ice. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the city had applied ice melt to the specific area and whether its practices contributed to excess ice accumulation, making summary judgment improper under the standard that requires construing facts in favor of the non-moving party. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved real estate buyers Thomas and Vicki Stevenson who sued seller 323 Jefferson LLC and its broker Windermere after the seller backed out of a purchase agreement and failed to return their $38,000 earnest money deposit, of which $9,500 had been paid to Windermere as a commission under a separate seller-broker agreement. The Stevensons asserted an unjust enrichment claim against Windermere, arguing the broker should not retain the funds. The district court granted summary judgment to Windermere, finding no disputed facts and that the buyers had not directly conferred a benefit on the broker, who was entitled to the commission from the seller under their contract. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal and the award of attorney fees to Windermere under I.C. § 12-121, holding that the claim lacked a legitimate factual or legal basis, while finding the cross-appeal on an alternative fee statute moot.

propertyprocedure

The case involved the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare petitioning to terminate John Doe's parental rights to his child after the child was declared in imminent danger and placed in state custody due to the mother's arrest and the father's incarceration. The magistrate court granted the petition following trial, concluding that the father had neglected the child under Idaho Code sections 16-1602(25)(a) and (b) and that termination was in the child's best interests, based on the father's history of substance abuse and criminal convictions, prior terminations of rights to older siblings, and failure to demonstrate ability to address the child's autism and developmental needs despite completing a case plan. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the magistrate court's order, finding that substantial, competent evidence supported the neglect determination and best-interests conclusion.

family law

This case involved Gary Brown, who injured his back in a 2004 workplace accident while employed at Home Depot and sought permanent total disability benefits under workers' compensation from his employer, its surety, and the Idaho Industrial Special Indemnity Fund, accounting for his preexisting impairments from prior back surgeries and lung removal. The Industrial Commission found Brown not permanently and totally disabled, rating him at 95 percent disabled based on evaluations tied to the 2005 date when his medical condition stabilized. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court vacated the Commission's decision and remanded the case. The court held that a claimant's disability must be assessed using the labor market conditions at the time of the hearing rather than at medical stabilization, because the Commission had applied an incorrect legal standard in discounting expert testimony and evaluating employability.

labor & employment

This case involved a negligence claim brought by Isabel Enriquez against Idaho Power Company after he suffered severe electrical burns from a downed high-voltage power line that energized an aluminum sprinkler pipe he was moving. Enriquez sought to prove negligence through the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, arguing that the accident would not have occurred without the company's fault in failing to shut off power to the line. After the close of the plaintiff's case, the district court granted Idaho Power's motion for a directed verdict, concluding that res ipsa loquitur did not apply because the incident involved specialized equipment whose proper operation is not within common lay knowledge. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the directed verdict, holding that Enriquez failed to establish the conditions for res ipsa loquitur and had waived any argument that he presented sufficient direct evidence of negligence under common law elements.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Thomas Weisel owned two adjacent lots in the Beaver Springs Subdivision and entered into an agreement with the homeowners association in 1983 that unified the lots, removed the setback zone between them, and prohibited future division or separate development, in exchange for approval of his building plans. In 2009, Weisel sued to rescind or reform the agreement. The district court granted summary judgment to the association, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the subdivision's Declaration of Restrictions unambiguously permitted lot unification upon design committee approval, resulting in a single parcel subject to one vote and assessment, and that the agreement was enforceable as written without grounds for rescission or reformation.

property

The case concerned Robert John Gurney, who pled guilty to felony possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, successfully completed drug court, and obtained dismissal of the charge under Idaho Code § 19-2604(1). He then moved to seal the case records under I.C.A.R. 32 due to claimed economic hardship from background checks and to amend the appellate caption to conceal his identity. The district court denied both motions, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that decisions on sealing records are reviewed for abuse of discretion, that the movant bears the burden to show privacy interests predominate over the public interest in disclosure, and that Gurney failed to meet this burden or to cite authority supporting a caption change, which is also barred by I.A.R. 6.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a class action by small Idaho employers against the Idaho State Insurance Fund and its manager, alleging that the manager violated I.C. § 72-915 by changing the dividend distribution method in 2003 to favor only policyholders paying over $2,500 in annual premiums. The district court ruled that the claim sounded in statute and applied the three-year limitations period under I.C. § 5-218(1), barring claims accruing before July 2003. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the action is primarily contractual because it depends on the insurance policies between the Fund and policyholders, so the five-year limitations period under I.C. § 5-216 applies. The court overruled contrary precedent and remanded for further proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedurelabor & employment

The case involved a dispute between developer Asbury Park, LLC and the Greenbriar Estates Homeowners' Association over ownership of Lot 39 in a subdivision, where Asbury Park had built storage facilities. The recorded plat described the lot as common area owned by the HOA, while the CC&Rs indicated it would be privately owned with rental rights to Asbury Park, and Asbury Park later reserved ownership when conveying common areas. The district court granted partial summary judgment to Asbury Park on the HOA's claims of common law dedication and fraud. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the conflicting documents did not establish the HOA's ownership and that an affidavit could not correct the plat without proper statutory replatting approval, while declining to apply the Restatement (Third) of Property-Servitudes to alter the outcome.

property

In State v. Hanson, the defendant was convicted of aggravated assault after exhibiting erratic behavior while incarcerated. He invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege and refused to participate in the presentence investigation report, leading the district court to deny his requests for a presentence psychological evaluation and a competency evaluation on grounds that selective invocation of the privilege was not permitted and that no doubt existed as to his competency. Hanson was sentenced to five years with three fixed, and he appealed the denials. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the competency evaluation but reversed the denial of the psychological evaluation, holding that the record showed his mental condition would be a significant sentencing factor and that the district court had applied an incorrect legal standard regarding the Fifth Amendment privilege. The court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

Minor Miracle Productions, LLC sued its co-member Randy Starkey for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and conversion after he refused to turn over possession of the completed film “The Hayfield” and related equipment following the breakdown of their working relationship. The district court imposed discovery sanctions that struck Starkey’s defenses and then granted MMP’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, awarding over one million dollars in damages, ordering return of the film and release of copyrights, and enjoining further interference. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that Starkey had waived nearly all appellate arguments by failing to support them with citations to the record or authority and that his remaining jurisdictional challenge was without merit.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved neighboring landowners petitioning for judicial review of the Camas County Board's approval of a preliminary subdivision plat, raising issues with road access via private easements, cul-de-sac length limits under county ordinances, and floodplain mitigation requirements. The district court vacated the Board's findings of fact and conclusions of law, ruling that they failed to provide the reasoned statement mandated by I.C. § 67-6535 and thus violated due process, and that the Board had misinterpreted several Camas County ordinances on access and floodplains. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the vacating of the Board's decision but reversed the district court's award of attorney fees, concluding that I.C. § 12-117 does not authorize fees in appeals from administrative proceedings.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved Shanna Locker's appeal from the Idaho Industrial Commission's denial of unemployment insurance benefits after her termination from Logan’s Foodtown. The employer had requested a medical release upon her return from hysterectomy-related leave to assess work limitations, but Locker did not provide one despite the request. The Commission determined that her failure to comply constituted insubordinate misconduct disqualifying her from benefits, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the employer's directive was reasonable, that Locker did not communicate any barriers to compliance or clarify that limitations stemmed from her MS rather than the recent surgery, and that substantial evidence supported the finding of misconduct rather than an inability to perform the job.

labor & employment

The case involved Brian Draper, a juvenile tried as an adult, who was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder in the 2006 killing of Cassie Jo Stoddart. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the murder conviction and the fixed life sentence imposed but vacated the conspiracy conviction due to errors in the jury instructions on the elements of that charge and remanded for a new trial. The court rejected challenges to the admission of a police interview, cumulative error, sentencing procedure, and claims that the sentence violated prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment or constituted an abuse of discretion, finding the evidence and record supported the murder-related outcomes.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a contract dispute between Cody Schroeder and Erik Partin over the assembly of a specialty car engine, including a performance agreement with a liquidated damages clause for late delivery. A jury found that Partin breached the agreement and upheld the validity of the liquidated damages provision, but the district court granted Partin's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the grounds that no reasonable jury could find the clause enforceable. The district court also awarded attorney fees to both parties as prevailing parties without apportionment. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court vacated the JNOV ruling, holding that evidence supported the jury's determination that the damages clause was a reasonable estimate of anticipated harm, and vacated the attorney fees award because the court failed to properly apportion fees under I.R.C.P. 54 based on each party's success on specific claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings, with attorney fees on appeal awarded to Schroeder.

business & regulatoryprocedure