Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A group called Idahoans United for Women and Families filed a petition seeking writs of certiorari and mandamus against the Idaho Division of Financial Management (DFM), the Idaho Attorney General, and the Idaho Secretary of State. The petition concerns the fiscal impact statement (FIS) and ballot titles for a citizen initiative titled the “Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act.” Idahoans United argued that the FIS and ballot titles did not comply with Idaho law and requested the court to either certify their proposed versions or order the respondents to prepare new compliant versions.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court dismissed the petition against the Secretary of State, finding that Idahoans United failed to properly invoke the court's original jurisdiction against him. However, the court partially granted the writ of mandamus against DFM, concluding that the FIS did not substantially comply with Idaho Code section 34-1812 due to a lack of a reasonable basis for its estimated fiscal impacts, unclear and conflicting statements, and unnecessary legal terms. The court also partially granted the writ of mandamus against the Attorney General, finding that the short ballot title did not substantially comply with Idaho Code section 34-1809 because it failed to capture all distinctive features of the initiative. However, the court found that the long ballot title substantially complied with the statutory requirements.The Idaho Supreme Court retained jurisdiction and ordered DFM to provide a new FIS and the Attorney General to provide a new short ballot title by June 23, 2025. The court denied the request for attorney fees, noting that both parties prevailed in part. View "Idahoans United for Women and Families v. Labrador" on Justia Law

In December 2018, Misty Dawn Rose was charged with Delivery of a Controlled Substance and later indicted on additional charges, to which she pleaded guilty. The district court sentenced her to multiple terms, which were to be served consecutively, but retained jurisdiction and sent her on a rider. After successfully completing the rider, Rose was placed on supervised probation. In November 2021, a Probation Violation Report was filed, citing multiple violations, including failure to attend substance abuse treatment and committing a new misdemeanor. The district court issued a bench warrant and, after a hearing, decided to give Rose another chance with a second rider, specifying that she must be admitted to drug court or mental health court to remain on probation.Rose completed the second rider but was not admitted to either treatment court due to eligibility issues. Despite her efforts, she was not accepted into any program. The district court set a probation review hearing, stating that failure to be accepted into a treatment court would be a violation of probation. Rose failed to appear at the review hearing because she was in custody in another county. The district court found her in violation of probation for not being admitted to a treatment court and for failing to appear at the hearing, and subsequently revoked her probation and imposed her sentences.The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding that Rose's failure to be admitted to a treatment court was not willful but upheld the finding that her failure to appear was willful. The case was remanded for a probation disposition hearing. Rose petitioned for review, which the Idaho Supreme Court granted.The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the district court's order revoking probation, holding that Rose's non-acceptance into a treatment court was not willful and that she was not given proper notice that her failure to appear at the hearing would be a ground for revocation. The judgment imposing her sentence was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings before a different district judge. View "State v. Rose" on Justia Law

The case involves the City of Lava Hot Springs, which regulates short-term rentals based on whether they are occupied by an owner or manager. Non-owner-occupied short-term rentals are prohibited in residential zones and only allowed in commercial zones. John and Michelle Taylor applied for a business license to operate a non-owner-occupied short-term rental in a residential zone, but the City denied their application. The Taylors, along with the Idaho Association of Realtors, sued the City, claiming that its regulations violated the Short-term Rental and Vacation Rental Act, which limits municipal regulations on short-term rentals.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, finding that the City's regulations did not have the express or practical effect of prohibiting short-term rentals and were permissible under the health, safety, and welfare exception in the Act. The court concluded that because at least one type of short-term rental (owner-occupied) was allowed in residential zones, the City had not violated the Act. The Taylors and the Realtors appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Court held that the City's ordinance, which prohibited non-owner-occupied short-term rentals in residential zones, violated the Short-term Rental and Vacation Rental Act. The Act prohibits any city ordinance that has the express or practical effect of prohibiting short-term rentals. The Court found that the City's ordinance amounted to a prohibition rather than a regulation and thus invalidated the ordinance. The Court awarded costs on appeal to the Petitioners but did not grant attorney fees to either party. View "Idaho Association of Realtors, Inc. v. City of Lava Hot Springs" on Justia Law

Chadlen Dewayne Smith was convicted of sexual exploitation of a child by possession of sexually exploitative material. The case began when Smith was arrested for stalking a police dispatcher. Following his arrest, law enforcement impounded his vehicle and conducted an inventory search, during which they seized electronic devices containing sexually exploitative materials. Smith challenged the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence found on these devices.The District Court of the First Judicial District, Kootenai County, denied Smith’s motion to suppress, concluding that there was probable cause for his arrest for stalking and that the impoundment and subsequent inventory search of his vehicle were reasonable and conducted according to standard police procedures. Smith was convicted by a jury of sexual exploitation of a child but acquitted of distributing obscene material. He appealed the conviction, arguing that the evidence obtained from the inventory search should have been suppressed.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The court held that the State did not meet its burden to show that the police officer’s decision to impound Smith’s vehicle served a community caretaking purpose. The impoundment was deemed unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, making the subsequent inventory search unconstitutional. Consequently, the evidence obtained from the search was inadmissible, leading to the vacating of Smith’s conviction. The court emphasized that the impoundment must be reasonable under all circumstances known to the police at the time and must serve a legitimate community caretaking function. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

Saul Arellano, a roofer, was injured while working on a construction project for Sunrise Homes, Inc. He fell from a roof without fall protection equipment and sustained multiple injuries. Arellano received worker’s compensation benefits through Sunrise Homes after it was discovered that his direct employer did not carry worker’s compensation insurance. Subsequently, Arellano filed negligence and negligence per se claims against Sunrise Homes, arguing that his injuries fell under the “unprovoked physical aggression” exception to Idaho’s worker’s compensation exclusive remedy rule.The District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Madison County, granted summary judgment in favor of Sunrise Homes. The court concluded that Arellano failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that his claims fell within the statutory exception to the exclusive remedy rule. Specifically, the court found no genuine issues of material fact that Sunrise Homes knew injury or death was substantially likely to occur due to the lack of fall protection equipment.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the district court erred in applying the “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard at the summary judgment stage. However, upon de novo review, the Supreme Court found that Arellano did not raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding Sunrise Homes’ knowledge that injury was substantially likely to occur. The court also rejected Arellano’s arguments that the 2020 amendments to Idaho Code section 72-209(3) codified a more lenient standard or reduced the burden of proof for plaintiffs. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Sunrise Homes and awarded costs on appeal to Sunrise Homes. View "Arellano v. Sunrise Homes, Inc." on Justia Law

Sean C. Flynn was laid off from his full-time job at Sun Valley Brewing Company during the COVID-19 pandemic and applied for unemployment benefits from the Idaho Department of Labor (IDOL) on March 25, 2020. Flynn received unemployment benefits from March 29, 2020, through June 27, 2020, while he was still employed part-time as a French teacher for the Community School, Inc. Flynn did not report his earnings from the Community School on the weekly certification forms required by IDOL. Additionally, when Flynn returned to full-time work at Sun Valley Brewing, he inaccurately reported his income for the week ending June 27, 2020.Flynn's claim for unemployment benefits was audited two years later, revealing discrepancies in his reported income. IDOL issued an eligibility determination letter retroactively denying Flynn's unemployment benefits and imposing civil penalties for willfully making false statements or failing to report material facts. Flynn appealed to the Idaho Department of Labor Appeals Bureau, arguing that his omissions were honest mistakes. The Appeals Examiner modified IDOL’s determination, finding Flynn misunderstood the reporting requirements for his part-time job but willfully misreported his income from Sun Valley Brewing for one week.IDOL appealed to the Idaho Industrial Commission, which conducted a de novo review and reversed the Appeals Examiner’s decision. The Commission reinstated IDOL’s original eligibility and overpayment determinations, concluding that Flynn’s omissions were willful based on the explicit instructions provided by IDOL and Flynn’s repeated failure to accurately report his income.The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the Commission’s decision, holding that Flynn’s omissions constituted a willful misstatement or concealment of material facts under Idaho Code section 72-1366(12). The Court determined that Flynn knew or should have known the necessity of reporting all income, and his failure to do so was intentional. Neither party was awarded attorney fees on appeal. View "Flynn v. Sun Valley Brewing Company" on Justia Law

Sentry Dynamics, Inc. (Sentry) requested a list of all property owners' names and addresses in Ada County from the Ada County Assessor’s Office. Ada County denied the request, suspecting Sentry intended to sell the data for use as a mailing or telephone list, which is prohibited under Idaho Code section 74-120(1). Sentry filed a complaint in district court seeking access to the records. The district court ordered Ada County to release the records in an electronic format of its choosing. Ada County appealed, and Sentry cross-appealed, requesting the records in the shapefile format used by the County.The district court of the Fourth Judicial District of Idaho ruled that the information Sentry sought was a public record and constituted a "list of persons" under Idaho Code section 74-120(1). The court held that Sentry was entitled to the records because it agreed not to use them as a mailing list. However, the court allowed Ada County to choose the electronic format for providing the records. Ada County appealed, arguing that Sentry did not assure the data would not be used for mailing list purposes by third parties. Sentry cross-appealed, seeking the records in their original shapefile format.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and held that the records requested by Sentry constituted a "list of persons" and that Ada County could require Sentry to assure that the data would not be used for mailing purposes by its clients and customers. The court affirmed the district court's ruling that paragraphs 3, 4, and 6 of Ada County’s "Acknowledgment and Agreement" form went beyond the permissible inquiry under Idaho Code section 74-102(5)(b). However, the court reversed the district court's order requiring Ada County to provide the records in an electronic format, stating that the PRA does not mandate delivery in any specific format. The court concluded that Ada County was not required to produce the records because Sentry refused to certify that neither it nor its clients would use the records as a mailing list. View "Sentry Dynamics, Inc. v. Ada County" on Justia Law

A mother and father, who divorced in 2017, were involved in a contentious child custody dispute. Initially, the mother was granted primary physical custody of their two sons, with the father having visitation rights. The court ordered both parents to attend counseling and appointed a parenting coordinator to help manage their disputes. In 2021, the father sought to modify the custody arrangement, alleging that the mother had been dishonest and failed to comply with the court's orders, including attending counseling for her factitious disorder.The magistrate court held an eight-day trial and found that the mother had indeed been dishonest and had not complied with the court's orders, which negatively impacted the children. The court granted the father sole legal and physical custody of the children, with the mother having limited visitation rights. The mother was also ordered to attend counseling with a new therapist experienced in treating dishonesty.The mother appealed directly to the Idaho Supreme Court, arguing that the magistrate court's findings were not supported by substantial evidence and that the court had abused its discretion in various ways, including denying her motion to interview the children and admitting her personnel file from a previous employer.The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the magistrate court's decision, finding that there was substantial and competent evidence to support the findings of the mother's dishonesty and its negative impact on the children. The court also held that the magistrate court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to interview the children, admitting the personnel file, or retaining the parenting coordinator. The Supreme Court awarded attorney fees and costs to the father, concluding that the mother's appeal was frivolous and without foundation. View "Stephens v. Buell" on Justia Law

Samuel and Peggy Edwards, residents of Rexburg, Idaho, refused to allow PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power Company, to install a smart electrical meter on their property due to health concerns. Rocky Mountain considered this refusal a violation of its terms of service, which required access to electrical meter bases. After negotiations failed, Rocky Mountain informed the Edwards that their electrical service would be terminated unless they allowed the installation. The Edwards filed a formal complaint with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (PUC), arguing they had not denied access and should be allowed to opt-out of the smart meter installation.The PUC consolidated the Edwards' complaint with similar complaints from other customers and granted Rocky Mountain's motion to dismiss, concluding that the Edwards had not provided evidence that smart meters presented a legitimate safety concern and that Rocky Mountain had the authority to access and replace meters. The Edwards' motion for reconsideration was also dismissed by the PUC, leading them to appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed whether the PUC properly determined that Rocky Mountain had the authority to access the Edwards' property to replace the existing meter with a smart meter. The Court affirmed the PUC's decision, concluding that the tariff provisions allowed Rocky Mountain to access and replace meters. The Court also found that the Edwards' constitutional arguments were waived due to insufficient support and authority. The PUC's orders dismissing the Edwards' complaint and denying reconsideration were affirmed. View "Edwards v. IPUC" on Justia Law

Esequiel Ruiz was charged with grand theft after being seen stealing packages from residences. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to eight years, with four years determinate, and placed on probation. In September 2021, the State moved to revoke his probation due to violations, including a domestic incident and failure to take mental health medications. Ruiz admitted to the violations, and the district court revoked his probation but retained jurisdiction, placing him in a rider program. In May 2022, the NICI recommended Ruiz for supervised probation, noting his completion of required programming despite some behavior issues. However, the district court relinquished jurisdiction without holding a review hearing or providing an explanation.The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. Ruiz then petitioned for rehearing to the Idaho Supreme Court, which was granted. The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the district court's decision for abuse of discretion, considering whether the court acted within its discretion, followed legal standards, and exercised reason in its decision-making process.The Idaho Supreme Court found that the district court abused its discretion by failing to provide any rationale for relinquishing jurisdiction, making it impossible to review the decision-making process. The court emphasized that while a jurisdictional review hearing is not required, the district court must provide an explanation when there is conflicting evidence in the record. The court vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for the district court to issue appropriate findings consistent with the opinion. View "State v. Ruiz" on Justia Law