Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Farmers National Bank (FNB) appealed the district court's grant of declaratory judgment in favor of Green River Dairy, LLC, and four commodities dealers: Ernest Carter, Lewis Becker, Jack McCall, and Hull Farms (Sellers). FNB argued the district court misinterpreted I.C. 45-1802 (a statutory lien provision) and as a result, erred in granting Sellers a priority lien on collateral securing a loan previously made by FNB. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with FNB about the misinterpretation and vacated the district court's grant of declaratory judgment in favor of the Sellers. View "Farmers Nat'l Bank v. Green River Dairy" on Justia Law

Rita Turner petitioned the magistrate court for a protection order for her and her son against her then-husband Robert Turner. The magistrate court found that there was reasonable cause to believe that bodily harm might result to Rita and her son and issued a 90-day order. Robert appealed to the district court, which affirmed the magistrate court’s decision. Robert then appealed that decision. Because Robert failed to develop an argument, offered scarce citation to authority, and ignored the aspects of the law unfavorable to him, the Supreme Court concluded he brought this appeal frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation. View "Turner v. Turner" on Justia Law

BV Beverage Company, LLC appealed the dismissal of its petition regarding the expiration of its liquor license. Idaho Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) contended that BV Beverage's interest in its license expired by operation of law when BV Beverage's lessee failed to timely renew. BV Beverage argued that the agency’s procedures deprived it of adequate procedural due process. The district court dismissed BV Beverage's petition because there was no agency action to review; even if there was agency action, the action did not violate procedural due process because BV Beverage had actual knowledge of the expiration date of the liquor license. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "BV Beverage Company v. Idaho Alcohol Beverage Control." on Justia Law

Petitioner Erick Hall was convicted and sentenced to death twice: first for kidnapping, murder and rape; second for rape and murder. While Hall's petition for post-conviction relief was pending for his first sentence, his second trial for rape and murder was underway. During the overlap of Hall I and Hall II, there were numerous communications between Hall's trial attorneys representing him in Hall II, and the State Appellate Public Defender's (SAPD) office, handling Hall's post-conviction proceedings in Hall I. It was the communications between Hall's trial counsel that were the basis for a potential conflict of interest in this case, given that the issue before the Supreme Court in this appeal was ineffective assistance of trial counsel in his second petition for post-conviction relief. In 2008, Hall filed a petition for post-conviction relief in connection with his Hall II conviction. Two years later, the SAPD filed an Ex Parte Notice of Possible Conflict of Interest with the district court. The Ex Parte Notice stated that the SAPD had "cooperated with trial counsel in Hall II by sharing testing and expert information obtained in Hall I." Dennis Benjamin [. . .] agreed to evaluate the conflict and advise Mr. Hall whether or not the conflict should be waived." With no knowledge of the Ex Parte Notice, the State filed a Motion for Inquiry into Possible SAPD Conflict. Although Benjamin conducted an extensive inquiry into whether the SAPD was conflicted, the district court did not question Benjamin about his findings. Rather, the court believed that Benjamin was too closely aligned with the SAPD to be truly independent. The court then issued a Memorandum Decision and Order Appointing Keith Roark as Independent Counsel. The SAPD filed a Motion to Reconsider Memorandum Decision, which the court denied. On appeal, Hall acknowledged the trial court had an affirmative duty to inquire into a potential conflict whenever it knew or reasonably should have known that a particular conflict may exist. However, Hall argued that the cases relied on by the district court in finding that it had an affirmative duty to conduct a thorough and searching inquiry were distinguishable because the possibility of a conflict in this case was raised by Hall's counsel, not Hall himself. Additionally, Hall contended that Roark's conflict inquiry was unnecessary and duplicative because: (1) Benjamin assessed the possible conflict and concluded no conflict existed; and, (2) Benjamin made his conclusion after reviewing all relevant information. Further, Hall argued that the district court's second inquiry was unnecessary because the conduct of Hall's previous attorneys at the SAPD's office should not have been imputed to Hall's then-current post-conviction counsel. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in appointing Roark as independent counsel; the district court order granting Roark access to the SAPD's client file violated Hall's attorney-client privilege. Therefore the Supreme Court vacated the district court's order appointing Roark as independent conflict counsel and its order requiring the SAPD to pay for Roark's services. View "Hall v. Idaho" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from the termination of Jeffry Black, the former Executive Director of the Idaho Peace Officer Standards and Training Council (POST). Black asserted that the Idaho State Police (ISP) violated two provisions of the Idaho Protection of Public Employees Act ("the "Whistleblower Act") when it terminated him. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of ISP, holding that Black failed to engage in activity protected under the Act. Black appealed the district court's decision to the Supreme Court. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Black v. Idaho State Police" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Wade Frogley appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondents Meridian Joint School District No. 2, Aaron Maybon, and Linda Clark, on Frogley's complaint of retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Idaho Human Rights Act. Plaintiff also appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondents on his claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from his work as an Assistant Principal at Mountain View High School within the Meridian School District. He alleged that within weeks of his hire, he was subject to continuous sexual harassment at the school from the principal and other assistant principals. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded genuine issues of material facts existed with regard to both of Plaintiff's claims. As a result, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Frogley v. Meridian Joint School Dist 2" on Justia Law

In 1991, appellant Zane Fields was sentenced to death for first degree murder. In 2011, appellant filed his sixth successive petition for post-conviction relief. He raised claims of actual innocence, prosecutorial misconduct, and violations of the right to counsel, due process, and the right to a fair trial. The district court granted the State's motion to dismiss appellant's petition because his claims were barred by I.C. 19-2719(5). Appellant appealed the district court's dismissal of his petition. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Fields v. Idaho" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case related to the service of four members of the Board of Directors for the Southern Valley County Recreation District. The State brought usurpation actions against Donald Keithly, Yvette Davis, Patrick Cowles, and Michael Smith (the Directors), alleging they usurped their offices as directors of the Recreation District. The State requested they be removed from office and sought a fine against each of them. Upon the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled that this action was an election contest, rather than a usurpation action, which could be brought by the State. The district court also ruled that the Directors' actions while in office were protected by the de facto officer doctrine. The State appealed, arguing this was a proper usurpation action and the de facto officer doctrine did not apply. The Directors cross-appealed, arguing they are entitled to attorney fees. The Supreme Court concluded the matter was moot and affirmed the district court's order denying attorney fees. View "Idaho v. Keithly" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court in this case arose from an order denying an employer's motion to have a laptop returned that had been seized from its employee during a search conducted at the employee's home by a probation officer. The Court affirmed the order denying the return of the laptop, but held that the laptop could not be searched without a search warrant issued upon a judicial finding of probable cause. View "Idaho v. Ruck" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a district court order that denied Defendant's motion to dismiss for the lack of probable cause, a felony charge of possession of methadone. The methadone was discovered upon the birth of the defendant's baby girl in the umbilical cord. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court held that for the purposes of determining whether there was probable cause to believe that the defendant had possessed a controlled substance, the magistrate judge could reasonably have inferred that the defendant consumed the methadone; that she possessed it before she consumed it; and that she knew it was either methadone or a controlled substance when she was possessing it. View "Idaho v. Neal" on Justia Law