Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Vernon K. Smith, Jr. was declared a vexatious litigant by the Fourth District Administrative District Judge (ADJ) in Idaho. This order prevents Smith from filing new litigation pro se in Idaho courts without obtaining prior permission from a judge. The determination arose from Smith's conduct in litigation concerning the administration of his mother Victoria H. Smith’s estate. Smith, a former attorney, was involved in contentious probate proceedings after his brother successfully challenged their mother's will, which had left the entire estate to Smith. The estate was subsequently administered as intestate, leading to multiple appeals and disciplinary actions against Smith by the Idaho State Bar.The district court found that Smith repeatedly filed frivolous and unmeritorious motions, including petitions to remove the personal representative (PR) and the PR’s counsel, motions to disqualify the district court judge, and objections to court orders. These actions were deemed to lack legal or factual basis and were intended to cause unnecessary delay. The PR of the estate moved to have Smith declared a vexatious litigant under Idaho Court Administrative Rule 59(d)(3), which the district court supported, leading to the referral to the ADJ.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the ADJ’s decision. The court held that the ADJ did not abuse its discretion in declaring Smith a vexatious litigant. The ADJ acted within the legal standards set forth in Rule 59(d) and reached its decision through an exercise of reason. The court also found that Smith’s due process argument was not preserved for appeal as it was raised for the first time. The court declined to award attorney fees to the ADJ, concluding that Smith’s appeal, although unsuccessful, was not frivolous or unreasonable. View "Smith v. Hippler" on Justia Law

Nicholas Roddy Ramlow and Amanda Marie Mitchell share custody of their minor son. The magistrate court had jurisdiction over their child custody case since 2016. In 2020, a temporary order was issued for the child to attend Kindergarten at Winton Elementary in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. The parents later entered into a custody agreement that did not specify the child's school. In 2021, Mitchell moved to Pinehurst, Idaho, and enrolled the child in Pinehurst Elementary without informing Ramlow, who was under a no-contact order. Ramlow discovered the change in 2023 and attempted to enroll the child in Bryan Elementary in Coeur d'Alene, but the school secretary, Miriam McBenge, refused without both parents' consent or a court order.Ramlow filed a petition for declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus in the district court to allow the child's enrollment in Coeur d'Alene. The district court dismissed the petition under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(8), citing the ongoing child custody case in the magistrate court. Ramlow argued that the district court erred in its dismissal. McBenge and Mitchell requested the district court's decision be affirmed.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, agreeing that the magistrate court was better positioned to resolve the issue of the child's school enrollment due to its ongoing jurisdiction over the custody case. The court noted that the district court acted within its discretion and followed the appropriate legal standards. The case was remanded to the district court to amend the judgment to reflect a dismissal without prejudice. Additionally, the court awarded attorney fees on appeal to Mitchell under Idaho Code section 12-121, as Ramlow's appeal was deemed frivolous and without foundation. View "Ramlow v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

Laura Milus, on behalf of herself and her minor son, D.L.J., filed a wrongful death action against Sun Valley Company after her husband died from colliding with snowmaking equipment while skiing at Sun Valley Ski Resort. Milus claimed that Sun Valley breached its duties under Idaho Code section 6-1103(2) and (6) by not properly marking the equipment and failing to post a notice about snowmaking operations.The District Court of the Fifth Judicial District of Idaho granted summary judgment in favor of Sun Valley, concluding that the company met its duty under section 6-1103(2) by placing yellow padding on the equipment and had no duty under section 6-1103(6) because the equipment was not actively discharging snow. The court did not address Sun Valley's argument that Milus' claims were barred by section 6-1106, which states that skiers assume the risk of injury from plainly visible or marked snowmaking equipment.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and held that ski area operators are held to an ordinarily prudent person standard of care when performing duties under the Ski Area Liability Act. The court found that Milus failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Sun Valley met this standard with the yellow padding. However, the court also held that there was a genuine issue of material fact about whether Sun Valley posted the required notice under section 6-1103(6).Despite this, the court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Milus' claims were barred by section 6-1106 because Mr. Milus assumed the risk of injury from the plainly marked snowmaking equipment. The court denied Sun Valley's request for attorney fees on appeal, as both parties prevailed on some arguments. View "Milus v. Sun Valley Company" on Justia Law

Lisa Sánchez, a member of the Boise City Council, moved her residence outside of the district she represented. She was informed by the mayor and city council that she had automatically vacated her seat due to this move. The mayor subsequently appointed a new council member to fill her seat. Sánchez sued the City of Boise, claiming improper removal and seeking reinstatement, along with damages for lost salary and benefits. The City moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the district court granted, dismissing her case with prejudice. Sánchez appealed, questioning whether a city council member automatically vacates their seat under Idaho Code section 59-901(1)(e) when they unintentionally move out of their district.The district court concluded that Idaho Code section 59-901(1)(e) applies to city council members and that Sánchez's intent to remain a resident of her district was irrelevant. The court held that the statute's plain language indicated an automatic vacancy upon moving out of the district, regardless of intent. The court also found that Sánchez received all due process required under the statute.The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Idaho Code section 59-901(1)(e) applies to city council members and that the statute's plain language does not require an inquiry into the official's intent. The court also concluded that no additional due process was required because any potential property interest in Sánchez’s elected position was forfeited when she moved out of her district. Thus, the district court's judgment on the pleadings in favor of the City was affirmed. View "Sanchez v. City of Boise" on Justia Law

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

James and David Hart were involved in a real estate transaction with Millennial Development Partners, LLC, from 2016 to 2022. The Harts filed a complaint in September 2021 seeking a declaratory judgment that future purchases would be unenforceable. The district court set a trial date for July 12, 2022, with a backup date of October 11, 2022, and required discovery to be completed sixty days before trial. Millennial answered the complaint on June 7, 2022, asserting eleven affirmative defenses and counterclaimed for declaratory relief. The Harts' counsel requested a trial continuance due to an undisclosed conflict of interest with previous counsel. The district court continued the trial to October and ordered the Harts to file a motion and brief establishing good cause to amend the scheduling order. The Harts failed to comply with this order.The district court of the Sixth Judicial District of Idaho struck the Harts' pleadings and dismissed the case without prejudice as a sanction for failing to follow the court’s scheduling order. Millennial moved for attorney fees, which the district court awarded on two grounds: as a sanction for disobeying the scheduling order and under Idaho Code section 12-121, finding the Harts pursued the case unreasonably. The district court calculated the award considering Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 54(e)(3) factors and awarded Millennial $9,592.46 in attorney fees and costs. The Harts moved to reconsider, arguing the district court incorrectly applied Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d)(3) and prematurely applied Idaho Code section 12-121. The district court clarified its sanction under Rule 16(e) and upheld the award.The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning the Harts under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 16(e) and awarding attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-121. The court also affirmed the calculation of attorney fees and awarded Millennial attorney fees on appeal under Idaho Code section 12-120(3). View "Petersen v. Millennial Development Partners, LLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Kandi Terry-Smith and Roy A. Smith, Jr., filed a complaint against Mountain View Hospital (MVH) and Idaho Falls Community Hospital (IFCH) alleging medical malpractice after Kandi suffered an injury while a patient at MVH. The complaint was filed on March 11, 2022, and a second, identical complaint was filed on September 8, 2022. The first case was dismissed for inactivity, but the district court granted an extension for service of process. The process server, Tony Mares, filed an affidavit claiming he served MVH, but deficiencies were later found.In the district court, MVH moved to dismiss the second case as time-barred and the first case for insufficient service of process. The district court denied the Smiths' motion to consolidate the cases and dismissed the second case. The district court granted MVH’s motion to dismiss the first case for insufficient service of process, finding that the Smiths failed to properly serve MVH. The Smiths' subsequent motions for reconsideration, to amend the complaint, and for additional extensions were denied. The district court also denied the Smiths' I.R.C.P. 60(b) motion for relief from the order denying reconsideration and judgment.The Idaho Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the Smiths failed to show good cause for the failure to timely serve MVH and did not exercise due diligence. The court also found no excusable neglect and determined that the Smiths' attorney's reliance on the process server’s affidavit was unreasonable. The court denied MVH’s request for attorney fees in the district court due to the lack of a cross-appeal but granted attorney fees and costs on appeal, finding the Smiths' appeal frivolous and without foundation. View "Smith v. Mountain View Hospital, LLC" on Justia Law

This case involves the termination of parental rights and an adoption proceeding. Jane Doe 1 ("Mother") and John Doe ("Father") had a child out of wedlock. Approximately eight months after the child's birth, Mother and her fiancé filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights and allow the fiancé to adopt the child. Mother did not serve the petition on Father, and he did not participate in the proceedings. The magistrate court terminated Father's parental rights and granted the adoption. Father later filed two motions to set aside the judgment, arguing that his due process rights were violated due to lack of notice. This appeal concerns Father's second motion.The magistrate court denied Father's second motion, finding it barred by res judicata. The district court disagreed, reversed the magistrate court's order, and remanded the matter for the magistrate court to consider the motion on its merits. Mother appealed, arguing that Father's motion was barred by procedural doctrines, including res judicata and waiver.The Supreme Court of Idaho held that Father's Rule 60(b)(4) motion alleged a fundamental error that deprived him of his right to procedural due process, which in turn violated his fundamental constitutional right to raise his child. The Court concluded that the fundamental error doctrine applies to create an exception to the doctrines of res judicata and waiver. The Court affirmed the district court's decision and remanded the matter to the magistrate court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Father's Rule 60(b)(4) motion was timely and, if so, whether the termination and adoption judgment is void. The Court also awarded partial attorney fees to Father for defending against certain arguments raised by Mother on appeal. View "Doe v. Doe" on Justia Law

Jon and Shawna Hill, along with their children, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Stuart Clive and his employer, Emergency Medicine of Idaho, P.A. (EMI), alleging that Clive misdiagnosed Jon Hill with vertigo when he was actually suffering from a stroke. This misdiagnosis led to severe physical and cognitive impairments for Jon Hill. The Hills claimed negligence, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, and respondeat superior liability. The district court dismissed the children's claims, ruling that Idaho does not recognize a claim for loss of parental consortium. The jury found in favor of EMI and Clive, and the district court denied the Hills' motion for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct.The Hills appealed the district court's dismissal of their children's claims, two evidentiary rulings, and the denial of their motion for a new trial. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the children's claims, agreeing that Idaho law does not recognize a claim for loss of parental consortium for non-fatal injuries. The court noted that creating such a cause of action involves significant policy considerations best left to the legislature.The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision to allow expert testimony on "hindsight bias" by EMI's expert, Dr. Opeolu M. Adeoye, finding it irrelevant and prejudicial. The court held that this error affected the Hills' substantial rights, as the testimony improperly endorsed EMI's theme of hindsight bias, potentially influencing the jury's decision. Consequently, the judgment in favor of EMI and Clive was vacated, and the case was remanded for a new trial. The court did not address the Hills' other issues on appeal due to the remand. EMI's request for attorney fees on appeal was denied, as they were not the prevailing party. View "Hill v. Emergency Medicine of Idaho, P.A." on Justia Law

Julene and William Dodd sued their attorney, Rory Jones, for legal malpractice after he missed the statute of limitations deadline for filing their medical malpractice lawsuit. The Dodds needed to prove that their original medical malpractice case had merit and that they would have won if Jones had filed on time. However, the district court struck the testimony of the Dodds’ experts, which was key to establishing the viability of their medical malpractice claim. The court found that the disclosures were untimely and that the experts failed to properly establish knowledge of the local standard of care, a foundational requirement of Idaho law. As a result, the Dodds’ legal malpractice claim was dismissed, and the court granted summary judgment in favor of Jones.The Dodds appealed to the Supreme Court of Idaho, arguing that the district court erred by ruling that Jones was not judicially estopped from arguing that no medical malpractice occurred and by excluding their expert testimony. They also raised claims of judicial bias. The Supreme Court of Idaho found that Jones could not be judicially estopped from claiming that no medical malpractice occurred because he was not a party in the original medical malpractice case but was representing the Dodds. The court also upheld the district court’s exclusion of the Dodds’ expert testimony, finding that the experts did not demonstrate familiarity with the local standard of care in Nampa, Idaho, at the time of the alleged malpractice.The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that the Dodds failed to establish an essential element of their legal malpractice case. The court also awarded attorney fees to Jones under Idaho Appellate Rule 11.2, finding that the appeal was pursued frivolously and without foundation, and sanctioned the Dodds’ attorney, Angelo Rosa, for his conduct during the appeal. View "Dodd v. Jones" on Justia Law