The case involved landowners operating a garage who sued the Twin Falls Highway District and Idaho Transportation Department after the agencies transferred a dedicated access road abutting their property to become part of a highway expansion project that included a buffer zone with curb and gutter, eliminating the road's prior use for parking and vehicle maneuvering. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no taking because there was no substantial impairment of access. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the ruling that loss of parking did not constitute a taking but reversed on the buffer zone issue, holding that converting the access road into part of the state highway system changed the character of the dedicated use and thus amounted to a compensable taking under inverse condemnation principles; the case was remanded to determine the amount of compensation owed.

propertybusiness & regulatory

Selkirk Seed Company sued the State Insurance Fund, alleging that the Fund lacked statutory authority to include "Part Two — Employers Liability Insurance" in its workers' compensation policies sold to Idaho employers and seeking rescission, an injunction, and return of associated premiums. The district court granted summary judgment to the Fund, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. The Court held that the Fund was authorized to sell the coverage because Part Two indemnifies employers against bodily injury claims arising out of employment that fall outside the exclusive remedies of the workers' compensation statute, such as claims brought in other states or under exceptions like willful misconduct. It further ruled that Part Two qualifies as insurance under Idaho law because it addresses real and determinable risks, rendering the requests for premium refunds and class certification moot.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

Roseann Steen was terminated from her job as a server at Denny's Restaurant after three disciplinary reports for cash register shortages and mishandling payments in violation of company policy. She sought unemployment insurance benefits, but the Idaho Department of Labor and Industrial Commission found her ineligible under Idaho Code Section 72-1366(5) due to employee misconduct. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that it was supported by substantial and competent evidence of deliberate rule violations and rejecting procedural challenges regarding the timeliness of filings and representation by a corporate officer. The majority concluded that the findings met the standard for misconduct warranting denial of benefits.

labor & employment

This case concerned a challenge to Idaho Code § 34-907B, a statute from a 1998 ballot initiative that required the Secretary of State to add legends next to candidates' names on ballots for U.S. Congress indicating whether they had signed a term-limits pledge or broken it, along with posting the pledge text at polling places. Petitioners, registered voters, sought a writ of prohibition and declaratory relief arguing that the law violated free speech and voting rights under the Idaho and U.S. Constitutions. The Idaho Supreme Court held that the ballot-legend requirements were unconstitutional, issued a writ barring the Secretary from implementing subsections (3) and (4), and invalidated subsection (5) as non-severable. The core reasoning was that the mandated legends compelled candidates to convey a specific message about term limits, infringing protected speech rights. A dissent contended that the petitioners lacked standing due to absence of particularized injury.

electionsfree speech

This case involved a worker's compensation claim by Gerald Mulder against Liberty Northwest Insurance for medical benefits related to bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome developed from his job duties as a loss prevention consultant, which included extensive driving, handwriting notes, and computer use. The Idaho Industrial Commission ruled that the condition constituted a single occupational disease and awarded benefits for surgery on the left hand. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the finding of an occupational disease peculiar to the claimant's occupation and that medical benefits under Idaho Code § 72-432 are available without requiring proof of total disability, which applies only to other forms of compensation under § 72-437.

labor & employment

The Cooks sued Skyline Corporation, the manufacturer of their defective manufactured home, and Norwest, the dealer and installer, for breach of contract and warranty, negligent selection and repair, and violations of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act, seeking damages including for emotional distress. After a jury verdict in the Cooks' favor, the district court granted Skyline's motion for a new trial, finding error in the admission of certain witness testimony about similar defects and the drip edge installation as well as in allowing an unpled negligent retention claim and the emotional distress damages without sufficient medical evidence. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court held that the district court abused its discretion in ordering a new trial on those bases, ruling that the objected-to testimony was not improperly admitted as a post-incident design change, that lay testimony could support some non-medical emotional distress symptoms, and that the case should be remanded for the district court to reconsider the new trial motion and the scope of required expert testimony.

proceduretorts & liabilityproperty

This case was an appeal by Shawn D. Daniels from his jury conviction for aggravated assault on a police officer, arising from an incident in which he pointed a handgun at officers responding to a reported burglary attempt before dropping the weapon. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the five-year sentence with two years fixed. The court held that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence upon which a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that any limitations on voir dire were harmless error, that the motion to dismiss the information was properly denied, and that the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion given the seriousness of brandishing a loaded firearm at law enforcement.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Dana L. Hammersley, who was charged with disturbing the peace under Idaho Code § 18-6409 after yelling a profane insult at a 13-year-old girl in the presence of other juveniles while picking up her daughter from school. Hammersley moved to dismiss, arguing that the statute violated her free speech rights under the U.S. and Idaho Constitutions because her words were not unprotected "fighting words." The magistrate court denied the motion, Hammersley entered a conditional guilty plea, and both the district court and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the loud, direct use of vulgar language targeted at a minor constituted fighting words that could be regulated, and that the statute was neither vague nor overbroad as applied to these facts.

criminal lawfree speech

This case involves an appeal by Gerald Ross Pizzuto, Jr., who was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, from the district court's summary dismissal of his third amended petition for post-conviction relief. Pizzuto alleged that the prosecution had withheld material exculpatory and impeachment evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, including information about key witnesses' mental health, criminal histories, and roles as informants, and he also sought the disqualification of the presiding judge. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Idaho Code § 19-2719 required all such claims to be raised in the defendant's first post-conviction petition or be waived, and Pizzuto had not demonstrated that the issues could not have been raised earlier. The court further held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by declining to disqualify himself, as there was no showing of actual prejudice that would prevent a fair hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a grandmother's attempt to intervene in ongoing Child Protective Act proceedings concerning her granddaughter, who had been placed in state custody due to abuse and neglect by her mother; the grandmother sought permanent placement with herself and an order halting reunification efforts with the child's recently identified biological father. The magistrate court denied the motion for permissive intervention under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b), ruling that the CPA limits party status to parents, guardians, custodians, and guardians ad litem, while the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act provides relatives only with notice and an opportunity to be heard but not party status or intervention rights. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the CPA does not grant a conditional statutory right to intervene and that the magistrate did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, without reaching other substantive issues as they were premature.

family lawprocedurefederal power

This case was a breach of contract action in which Idaho Power sued Cogeneration for failing to post the second installment of a required security deposit under a 1992 firm energy sales agreement for power from a proposed hydroelectric facility. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment for Idaho Power. Cogeneration claimed that revocation of its state environmental permits (a 401 certificate) was a force majeure event that excused its performance and triggered Idaho Power's duty to acknowledge the excuse, but the court held that the contract terms required the security payment to occur before any force majeure excuse applied and that Idaho Power had no obligation to acknowledge excused performance before the payment deadline. The court also concluded that Idaho Power did not breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

business & regulatory

This case involves the divorce of George and Jeane Swanson, focusing on the division of assets including proceeds from a settlement with George's former employer and reimbursements for community funds used for separate debts. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings that the settlement proceeds were community property and could not be recharacterized, and that the community was entitled to reimbursement without prejudgment interest. The core reasoning was that the law of the case doctrine barred reopening decided issues, there was no evidence of fraud or agreement requiring immediate reimbursement, and interest was not due until the court ruled on the claims.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case concerned the Boise City Council's grant of a certificate of appropriateness allowing demolition of a historic warehouse building in a preservation district, after the city's historic preservation commission had denied the application. The district court reversed the council's decision on the ground that council members had received and considered ex parte telephone calls from the public outside the formal record. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act did not govern review of the council's action and that the council's receipt of undisclosed or unaddressed outside communications violated due-process requirements applicable to quasi-judicial proceedings. The court reasoned that such ex parte contacts undermined the fairness of the appellate hearing before the council and justified setting aside its decision.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a dispute over escrow funds in a real estate transaction where Dennett exercised an option to repurchase farm property from the Kuenzlis after a prior specific performance judgment. Following Dennett's possession of the property, the Kuenzlis alleged default on three annual installments during the earlier litigation period and claimed the funds; the escrow bank interpleaded the money paid by Dennett under protest. The district court granted summary judgment to Dennett, ruling that no enforceable contract existed until June 1997 so there was no default, and awarded him the funds plus damages and attorney fees. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court held that Dennett's cross-claim was not barred by res judicata, affirmed the core ruling and most damages, but modified the judgment by reducing a loan origination fee offset and vacating an interest offset, remanding for entry of a corrected judgment.

propertyprocedure

This case is a consolidated appeal arising from a real estate transaction in which Dennett sold farm property to the Kuenzlis under a contract with a prepayment penalty and retained an option to repurchase the land. After Dennett won specific performance of the option agreement in Dennett I, he filed Dennett II seeking damages for the Kuenzlis' wrongful possession, but the district court granted summary judgment to the Kuenzlis on res judicata grounds and denied post-appeal motions to consolidate or amend. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court dismissed Dennett's claims because he had obtained an alternative remedy in a related proceeding regarding land payments, and it affirmed the denial of attorney fees to the Kuenzlis because Dennett remained the overall prevailing party in Dennett I despite the mixed results.

propertyprocedure

This case involved an appeal by industrial customers challenging the Idaho Public Utilities Commission's orders authorizing Idaho Power Company to recover certain deferred demand-side management (DSM) program expenditures incurred after 1993 and to accelerate the amortization period for all outstanding DSM balances from 24 years to 12 years. The Commission had previously approved the DSM programs for deferral but conditioned ultimate recovery on a prudence finding, and a rate moratorium stipulation allowed requests for changes in DSM recovery methods. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's orders, holding that the Commission had authority to adjust the amortization period, that the proceedings did not improperly treat the matter as a single-item expense outside a general rate case, and that the authorizations were supported by substantial evidence of cost-effectiveness and reasonableness.

business & regulatory

The Idaho Department of Finance sued Resource Service Company (RSC), a company that charged fees to enter customers in BLM noncompetitive oil and gas lease drawings, alleging that RSC had marketed unregistered securities in violation of the Idaho Securities Act. After the Idaho Supreme Court held in an earlier appeal that RSC's program was not an investment contract and thus not a security, the district court dismissed the complaint but denied RSC's request for attorney fees under Idaho Code § 12-117. RSC appealed the fee denial, arguing that the Department had lacked any reasonable basis in fact or law. The Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the absence of controlling Idaho precedent and decisions from other jurisdictions finding similar services to be securities meant the Department had acted with a reasonable basis throughout the proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Selkirk Seed sued the Idaho State Insurance Fund, its manager, and the Attorney General, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Attorney General lacked authority to represent non-governmental insureds like Selkirk in a worker's compensation proceeding before the Industrial Commission. The district court ruled that the Attorney General was not required to represent SIF but that SIF was free to choose the Attorney General as its counsel. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court held that SIF may contract with the Attorney General to defend its non-governmental insureds in such proceedings, relying on the Legal Services Unification Act's provisions allowing the Attorney General to provide legal services to state entities and the absence of any statutory prohibition on representing private insureds. The court also upheld the denial of Selkirk's request to take depositions related to a prior case, finding those issues irrelevant to the present dispute.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a petition to modify child support provisions in a 1987 divorce decree between Tani Hall and Tod Humberger regarding their daughter Brandi. Hall sought an increase in support, arguing changed circumstances, while Humberger claimed Hall was voluntarily unemployed due to college attendance and sought adjustments including the child dependency exemption. The magistrate increased support to $253 monthly, imputed $14,000 annual income to Hall based on a summer job paying $7 per hour, found her voluntarily unemployed, and deducted $10,400 in work expenses from Humberger's gross income as an electrician employee. On review, the Idaho Supreme Court held that Hall was correctly deemed voluntarily unemployed but that the magistrate abused its discretion by imputing income without sufficient evidence of year-round earning capacity at that rate and by improperly applying self-employment deduction rules to a wage earner under the Idaho Child Support Guidelines. The Court vacated the imputed income finding, reversed the expense deduction, and remanded for recalculation of incomes and support consistent with the Guidelines.

family law

This case involved defendant E. Wright's appeal from his conviction for trafficking in methamphetamine after a conditional guilty plea. He challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence found in his wife's purse during a police stop and the imposed sentence of a unified twenty-year term with five years fixed plus a $10,000 fine. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the suppression motion, holding that the warrantless search was lawful as part of a valid Terry investigatory stop and frisk based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, as detailed in the companion case. The court also affirmed the sentence after reviewing the record, including the defendant's criminal history, the nature of the offense, and sentencing objectives such as protection of society, deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court.

criminal lawprocedure