Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Samuel Hickman was electrocuted while working on a construction site when a boom crane contacted overhead power lines. Hickman and his wife filed a personal injury lawsuit against Boomers, LLC, its owner Michael Landon, and employee Colter James Johnson, alleging negligence and recklessness. Boomers moved for summary judgment, claiming immunity under Idaho’s Worker’s Compensation Law. Hickman argued that the accident fell under the “willful or unprovoked physical aggression” exception to the exclusive remedy rule. The district court granted summary judgment for Boomers and denied Hickman’s motion for reconsideration.The district court applied the 2020 amended version of Idaho Code section 72-209(3), which clarified the “willful or unprovoked physical aggression” exception, and concluded that Boomers did not intend to harm Hickman or have actual knowledge that injury was substantially likely. Hickman appealed, arguing that the district court should have applied the pre-amendment version of the statute and the standard from Gomez v. Crookham Co., which interpreted the exception to include conscious disregard of knowledge that an injury would result.The Supreme Court of Idaho reversed the district court’s decision, holding that the pre-amendment version of section 72-209(3) and the Gomez standard should apply. The court found that the additional evidence submitted by Hickman in his motion for reconsideration created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Johnson consciously disregarded the known risk of injury from the power lines. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Hickman v. Boomers, LLC" on Justia Law

The Idaho Attorney General filed a petition seeking to prevent an initiative from appearing on the 2024 general election ballot. The initiative, proposed by Idahoans for Open Primaries, aims to replace Idaho’s closed party primary system with a non-partisan “top four primary” and implement ranked-choice voting for the general election. The Attorney General argued that the signatures supporting the initiative were obtained through false statements and material omissions, violating Idaho Code section 34-1815, and that the initiative violated the single-subject rule of the Idaho Constitution by proposing two distinct changes to election laws.The Idaho Supreme Court dismissed the Attorney General’s petition on procedural grounds. The court held that allegations of fraud in the signature-gathering process must first be adjudicated in the district court. The court emphasized that its original jurisdiction to issue writs of prohibition and mandamus is limited and that such writs are proper only when a state actor has a clear legal duty to act. The court found that the Secretary of State had no clear legal duty to invalidate the signatures based on the Attorney General’s allegations and that the Secretary’s role in the initiative process is ministerial, not adjudicatory.The court also addressed the Attorney General’s claim that the initiative violated the single-subject rule. It concluded that this issue was not ripe for review because the initiative had not yet been approved by voters. The court stated that substantive challenges to an initiative’s constitutionality are not justiciable before the initiative becomes law. The court’s decision does not preclude the Attorney General from pursuing his claims in the district court. View "Labrador v. Idahoans for Open Primaries" on Justia Law

Jessica Wiseman and her children sued Dr. Nathan Rencher and others for the wrongful death of Eric Wiseman, alleging medical malpractice and gross negligence. Rencher, the only defendant subject to Idaho's prelitigation screening panel requirement, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Wisemans failed to comply with this requirement. He supported his motion with the panel’s advisory decision, filed under seal. The district court granted Rencher’s motion, concluding that the Wisemans did not meet the prelitigation requirement based on the advisory decision. The Wisemans also sought to disqualify the district judge, which was denied.The district court, part of the Seventh Judicial District of Idaho, ruled that the advisory decision could be considered to determine compliance with the prelitigation requirement. The court found the statutes ambiguous and concluded that they allowed limited review of the advisory decision. The court also ruled that the statutes controlled over conflicting Idaho Rules of Evidence. Consequently, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Rencher, finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding the Wisemans' compliance with the prelitigation requirement.The Supreme Court of Idaho reversed the district court’s decision, holding that the prelitigation screening statutes unequivocally precluded judicial review of the advisory decision for any purpose. The court emphasized that the statutes clearly stated there should be no judicial review and that parties should not be affected by the panel’s conclusions. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings. Additionally, the court declined to disqualify the district judge on remand, distinguishing this case from precedent and finding no appearance of bias. Neither party was awarded attorney fees on appeal, as both prevailed in part. View "Wiseman v. Rencher" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Brian L. Porter, trustee of the Brian L. Porter Revocable Trust, and Marvin A. Remmich, manager of McMillan Storage LLC, an Idaho limited liability company. The conflict centers on the management of the LLC and the conduct of its members. Remmich initially filed a complaint in California against Porter, alleging various breaches related to the construction of the LLC’s storage facility. Porter later filed a complaint in Idaho, accusing Remmich of mismanaging the LLC. Both parties reside in California, and the LLC’s principal place of business is also in California.In the California action, the court denied Porter’s motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens, retaining jurisdiction over the case. Subsequently, the Idaho District Court dismissed Porter’s claims without prejudice under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(8), which allows for dismissal when another action between the same parties for the same cause is pending. The district court reasoned that the California court could adjudicate the entire controversy, and concurrent litigation would lead to increased costs and potentially inconsistent judgments.The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the district court’s decision. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Idaho action. The court found that the parties and claims in both actions were essentially the same, and the California court was in a position to resolve the entire dispute. The court emphasized considerations of judicial economy, minimizing litigation costs, and avoiding inconsistent judgments. Consequently, the Idaho action was dismissed without prejudice, and Porter was directed to pursue his claims in the California court. View "Porter v. Remmich" on Justia Law

The case involves a failed business relationship between Mike Jones, Jeremy Sligar, and Sligar's business, Overtime Garage, LLC. Jones claimed they formed a joint venture in 2011 to buy and sell used vehicles, which Sligar disputed. The relationship deteriorated, and Sligar terminated the venture in 2016. Jones filed a complaint in 2016 seeking a declaratory judgment, dissolution of the joint venture, and other relief. Sligar counterclaimed for similar relief. During the litigation, Safaris Unlimited, LLC, bought Jones's interest in the case at a sheriff's sale and settled the case by dismissing Jones's claims against Sligar.The District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, Twin Falls County, denied Jones's motion to set aside the judgment in the first case (Sligar I) and granted summary judgment to Sligar in the second case (Sligar II), finding that Jones's claims were barred by res judicata. The court also awarded attorney fees to Sligar and Safaris, finding Jones's motion to set aside the judgment was frivolous and untimely. Jones appealed these decisions, arguing the consolidation of small claims actions with Sligar I was improper and that his Rule 60(b) motion was timely.The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the district court's decisions. It held that the consolidation of the small claims actions with Sligar I was proper, as the small claims were related to the disputed property in Sligar I. The court also found that Jones did not file his Rule 60(b) motion within a reasonable time, as he delayed over five months without a valid reason. Additionally, the court upheld the summary judgment in Sligar II, agreeing that Jones's claims were barred by res judicata. The court awarded attorney fees to Sligar for the appeal in Sligar I but not in Sligar II, as Sligar did not prevail on its cross-appeal. View "Jones v. Sligar" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between siblings Elizabeth and Jason Carter, who are both licensed dentists and co-owners of Carter Dental. In 2020, Jason accused Elizabeth of misusing the practice’s funds for her personal benefit. The parties agreed to mediation, which resulted in a settlement agreement that included a noncompete clause. Elizabeth later refused to sign a written mutual release, leading Jason to move to enforce the settlement agreement. The district court found the settlement agreement and noncompete clause enforceable and dismissed the case with prejudice. Elizabeth appealed, arguing that the noncompete clause and the settlement agreement were unenforceable.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court's judgments. The court found that Elizabeth was estopped from arguing that the settlement agreement was unenforceable because she had not appealed the district court’s dismissal of the case with prejudice. The court also held that the district court did not err in awarding attorney fees and costs to Jason and Carter Dental. The court concluded that Jason and Carter Dental were entitled to attorney fees and costs on appeal. View "Carter Dental v. Carter" on Justia Law

The case involves Scott and Natalie Pinkham, who contracted with Three Peaks Homes, LLC, for the construction of a custom home. The construction did not go as planned and the contract was terminated before the home was completed. Three Peaks subsequently filed two $600,000 mechanics’ liens against the Pinkhams’ home. The Pinkhams then filed a complaint against David Plate, Rebeccah Jensen, Three Peaks, Rebel Crew Construction, LLC, and Legacy Management Enterprises, LLC, asserting several causes of action.The district court denied the Pinkhams’ motion for summary judgment. Later, the Pinkhams’ attorney, Lance Schuster, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Plate, Jensen, Three Peaks, and Legacy, which the court granted. The court ordered Appellants to appoint another attorney or appear in person within twenty-one days of service of the order, failing which, the court may enter default judgment against them. The court clerk served a copy of the withdrawal order on Appellants via first class mail.The Pinkhams moved for the entry of default and default judgment against Appellants and for dismissal of Appellants’ counterclaims with prejudice. The district court granted the Pinkhams’ motion without a hearing. Appellants later secured new counsel and filed a motion to set aside the default and default judgment under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), (4), and (6). The district court denied Appellants’ motion.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s decision denying the motion to set aside the default and default judgment. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that Appellants failed to demonstrate good cause to set aside the entry of default. The court also held that Appellants have failed to establish a right to relief under Rule 60(b). The court declined to award attorney fees on appeal. View "Pinkham v. Plate" on Justia Law

The case involves an individual, referred to as "John Doe," who repeatedly applied for admission to the Idaho State Bar. Doe's applications were denied due to concerns about his character and fitness, including his honesty, judgment, and respect for the rights of others. Doe challenged these denials, arguing that his federal lawsuits against the Idaho State Bar were a necessary defense of his rights and that his conduct was protected by the First Amendment.The Idaho State Bar filed a petition with the Idaho Supreme Court, seeking permission to reject Doe's third application and to prohibit him from filing future applications for a specified period. Doe cross-petitioned, seeking immediate admission to the Idaho State Bar.The Idaho Supreme Court denied Doe's cross-petition, finding that he had not demonstrated that he met the essential eligibility requirements to practice law. The court granted the Idaho State Bar's petition in part, allowing it to reject Doe's third application and prohibiting Doe from filing a new application for two years. The court found that Doe had not shown a significant change in his circumstances that would render him eligible to practice law. The court also ordered the Idaho State Bar to refund Doe's application fee. View "ISB v. John Doe" on Justia Law

In this case, Laurie Barton, a third-year law student at the University of Idaho, was accused of violating the university's honor code by committing academic misconduct during a final examination. Despite denying the allegations, she was sanctioned with degree denial after a series of Honor Court proceedings. Barton exhausted her administrative review options, including an appeal to the Idaho State Board of Education, and then petitioned for judicial review. The district court denied her petition. Instead of appealing this decision, Barton sued the Board of Regents of the University of Idaho and Idaho State Board of Education, alleging nine causes of action, all of which the district court dismissed at summary judgment.The district court's judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho. The Supreme Court found that Barton had failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that the University violated its duty of good faith and fair dealing or that it made a specific promise that induced her action. The court also found that Barton's motion for a protective order was implicitly denied and moot, as the case was resolved on summary judgment. The court concluded that Barton's appeal was pursued frivolously, unreasonably, and without foundation, and awarded attorney fees and costs to the University. View "Barton v. Board of Regents" on Justia Law

Michelle Oksman sued the City of Idaho Falls after slipping and falling on a wet surface in the lobby of the West Deist Aquatic Center, a facility owned and operated by the City. Oksman alleged negligence on the part of the City. The district court initially granted the City's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the City had no actual notice of a dangerous condition and did not fail to take reasonable action to remedy potential hazards. However, the court later withdrew its grant of summary judgment after Oksman identified the person who had allegedly stated that people frequently fell in the area where she had fallen. The case proceeded to a jury trial, during which the district court limited Oksman's testimony and declined to give a jury instruction Oksman requested regarding the reasonable value of necessary services. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the City, and the district court dismissed Oksman's complaint with prejudice. Oksman appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. The Supreme Court found that the district court had erred in limiting Oksman's testimony about a statement made by the manager of the aquatic center, which was crucial to Oksman's case. The Supreme Court also provided guidance on issues likely to arise again on remand, including the use of depositions for impeachment and the use of leading questions. The Supreme Court further vacated the district court's award of costs to the City as the prevailing party. Neither party was awarded attorney fees on appeal. View "Oksman v. City of Idaho Falls" on Justia Law