Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case concerned the Director (Director) of the Idaho Department of Water Resources' application of the Rules for Conjunctive Management of Surface and Ground Water Resources (CM Rules) in response to a ground water to ground water delivery call filed by the A&B Irrigation District (A&B). The Director’s Final Order found that A&B was not materially injured and was affirmed by the district court on nearly all points. A&B appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the Director and the district court erred in their analyses. The City of Pocatello and the Idaho Ground Water Appropriators, Inc. cross-appealed alleging that the district court erred by requiring that the Director's finding of no material injury must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, rather than a preponderance of the evidence. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court. View "A & B Irrigation v. Idaho Dept of Water Resources" on Justia Law

Two personal injury actions and one wrongful death action arising out of an automobile accident were consolidated on appeal before the Supreme Court. In 2007, Paul -Smith's vehicle collided with a semi-tractor trailer driven by Robert Petrovich. Nicole Plouffe and Tiffany Ann Marie Fragnella were both passengers in Smith's vehicle. Plouffe was severely injured and Fragnella died as a result of her injuries. At the time of the accident, Petrovich was driving the semi-truck for Swift Transportation Co., Inc., and was training a Swift Transportation employee in driving skills. The Swift Transportation trainee, Thomas Thayer, was a passenger in the semi-truck at the time of the collision. Thayer was covered under Swift Transportation's workers' compensation insurance. Smith and his passengers' Amended Complaint alleged that Petrovich was negligently driving the semi-truck. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Petrovich and Swift, finding that there was no evidence that the accident was caused by Petrovich. The district court also concluded that a third party claim for negligence against Petrovich was separately barred by the exclusive remedy rule under Idaho's Workers' Compensation statutes. Smith appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, that the court abused its discretion in denying the Motions for Reconsideration, and that the court erred in determining that the exclusive remedy rule barred the third-party claims against Petrovich. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Petrovich, and found no error in the district court's decision. View "Fragnella v. Petrovich" on Justia Law

This case concerned the ownership status of Coolwater Ridge Road in Idaho County. The predecessors in interest of appellant Paddison Scenic Properties, Family Trust, L.C. granted rights of way to the United States for a road which became Coolwater Ridge Road. In the district court, Paddison sought a declaratory judgment that the rights of way did not constitute a public road or highway under Idaho law. That court held that the rights of way were public because the criteria for common law dedication were met. Upon review, the Idaho Supreme Court vacated the district court's judgment because it concluded this case was not ripe for adjudication. View "Paddison Scenic Properties Family Trust v. Idaho County" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court pertained to an order suppressing evidence. A law enforcement officer following two vehicles turned on the overhead lights of his patrol car in order to pull over the lead vehicle. Both vehicles pulled over, and the officer parked his car behind the lead vehicle and several car lengths in front of the rear vehicle. When the officer got out of his car, he walked back to the rear vehicle to tell the driver he was only stopping the lead vehicle. The district court held that by walking towards the rear vehicle, the officer seized its occupants without a reasonable, articulable suspicion that they had violated any law. The Supreme Court reversed: when approaching the rear vehicle, the trooper did not draw his gun or make any hand gestures indicating that the vehicle should not leave, nor did he even shine his flashlight at it. Considering the totality of the circumstances in this case, the trooper did not seize the rear vehicle by walking up to the driver's door. His actions certainly indicated that he wanted to talk to the driver, but the Supreme Court concluded that did not constitute a seizure. View "Idaho v. Ray" on Justia Law

This appeal was a consolidation of two actions relating to residential leases on State endowment lands. In one action, the Attorney General sought a declaratory ruling that I.C. 58-310A, which exempts so-called "cottage site" leases from conflict auctions, was unconstitutional in light of Article IX, section 8 of the Idaho Constitution. The district court determined that I.C. 58-310A was constitutional, and thus, dismissed the Attorney General's complaint. The Attorney General appealed that decision. In the other action, Gladys Babcock and several others who lease cottage sites on Payette Lake filed an action against the State Board of Land Commissioners and the Idaho Department of Lands Director. The Payette Lake Lessees alleged that the Board breached their lease agreements when it declined to renew the expiring leases for an additional ten years. The district court granted summary judgment to the Board, finding the Payette Lake Lessees had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. The Payette Lake Lessees filed a cross-appeal challenging that decision. Upon review of the cases, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's ruling on the Attorney General's claim because I.C. 58-310A was unconstitutional. The Court vacated the district court's holding with respect to the Payette Lake Lessees' claim and remanded both cases for further proceedings. View "Wasden v. Board of Land Commissioners" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court was a challenge to the failure of a district court to give preclusive effect to a California federal district court judgment during a proceeding to grant recognition of a subsequent German judgment. Plaintiff Ron Markin executed a promissory note in 1988 agreeing to pay Defendant Thomas Grohmann $551,292.00 with interest at ten percent per annum. The loan was for a business transaction between the parties. In September 1997, Plaintiff sued Defendant in the United States District Court in the Central District of California in order to collect the promissory note. At that time, Defendant resided in Scottsdale, Arizona. The parties entered into a written settlement agreement to resolve the lawsuit. The agreement provided the principal and interest owing; that the lawsuit would be dismissed if that sum plus interest was paid according to the terms of the agreement; that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement; that if the amount due under the agreement was not paid in full as provided in the agreement, Plaintiff could obtain a judgment as provided by California law; and that the agreement "shall be governed by and interpreted under the laws of the State of California." Defendant failed to pay according to the agreement, and Plaintiff obtained an ex parte judgment against Defendant. After learning that Defendant owned real property in Germany, Plaintiff commenced a civil action in Germany to enforce the California judgment. The German trial court dismissed the action on the ground that the judgment was not enforceable under German law. Plaintiff appealed and asserted that if the judgment was not enforceable, he could recover on the settlement agreement upon which that judgment was based. The appellate court agreed, and it issued an opinion ordering Defendant to pay Plaintiff. The court held that it could enter a judgment against Defendant based upon the settlement agreement because he had previously been a German citizen. Upon its review of matter, the Idaho Supreme Court concluded that the German judgment was a final judgment under German law. But because the German judgment did not recognize the effect of a final judgment under California law, it conflicted with the California judgment. The Idaho Court therefore reversed the judgment of the district court that recognized the German judgment. View "Markin v. Grohmann" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Paul Trunell and Bill Lomu appealed a district court's ruling against them in their request for injunctive relief. Plaintiffs' complaint alleged the existence of a public road across Defendant Verna Fergel's property, and that she denied access to the road causing damage to Plaintiffs. The district court held that Defendant was a bona fide purchaser for value, and that she did not have actual or constructive notice of the public nature of the road when she purchased the property. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found that the "bona fide purchaser for value" defense was not available to Defendant as it would have constituted an abandonment of the road in contravention to Idaho law. The Court therefore reversed the district court's holding and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Trunnell v. Fergel" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Victoria Johnson appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of North Idaho College (NIC) on her claim of discrimination under the Idaho Human Rights Act (IHRA). Plaintiff alleged one of her instructors sexually harassed her, and that NIC was vicariously liable for that harassment. The district court held that NIC's affirmative defense was factually support, and that she failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact. Upon review of the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not err in finding that no genuine issue of material fact existed in regard to Plaintiff's claims. Accordingly the Court affirmed the opinion of the district court. View "Johnson v. North Idaho College" on Justia Law

Petitioner Richard Leavitt petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Commission of Pardons and Parole (Commission) to schedule a full hearing on his petition for commutation and comply with its rules for such a hearing by publishing notice of the time and place of the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation at least once per week for four weeks prior to the hearing. After the Supreme Court affirmed the issuance of Petitioner's death warrant, the Commission denied Petitioner's request for a hearing. Petitioner asked the Supreme Court to set a date for a hearing wherein the Commission must show cause why a full hearing should not be conducted; if granted, the hearing would effectively stay his execution. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Commission was not required to grant Petitioner a full, open hearing regarding his commutation petition. Furthermore, Petitioner did not demonstrate that his request for the writ of mandamus or alternative writ should have issued. Accordingly, the Court denied Petitioner's requests. View "Leavitt v. Craven" on Justia Law

Appellant Richard Leavitt appealed his death warrant. He also appealed the district court's denial of his motion to quash the death warrant. In 1984, Appellant brutally attacked, sexually mutilated and murdered a 31-year-old woman in Blackfoot, in which a jury found him guilty of first-degree murder. In 1989, the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, but reversed the death sentence because the trial court failed to weigh all the mitigating factors against the statutory aggravating factor that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel manifesting in exceptional depravity. On remand, the district court held another sentencing hearing and again sentenced Appellant to death. The warrant was issued in 1992, with a scheduled date of execution 23 days later. The United States Supreme Court granted Appellant's stay of execution. In 2000, Appellant was granted the writ of habeas corpus because of an improper jury instruction and ordered the State to retry Appellant. The State appealed, and the Ninth Circuit reversed the habeas order. The case was remanded to determine whether Appellant's resentencing hearing in 1989 violated his constitutional rights. In 2007 on remand, the district court again granted habeas relief. The State appealed in 2011, and the Ninth Circuit again reversed the habeas order. In 2012, Appellant filed a motion for relief from judgment; the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate automatically lifting any stay previously imposed by the habeas court. The habeas court denied Appellant's motion, and denied his request for a stay of execution. Appellant's appeal of that order was pending before the Ninth Circuit, but anticipating the issuance of a new death warrant, he filed notice of Demand for Opportunity to be Heard regarding the Issuance of the Death Warrant in Idaho district court. The court denied the motion because at that time, no stay of execution or death warrant was then pending before any court. Subsequently, the court signed Appellant's death warrant and scheduled his execution. Appellant raised multiple challenges to each procedural stage of his case, from sentencing, habeas relief, constitutional rights violations and the eventual signing of his death warrant. Taking all in turn, the Supreme Court found no errors arising from this case's journey to the Idaho Supreme Court. Accordingly the Court affirmed the district court and declined to stay Appellant's execution. View "Idaho v. Leavitt" on Justia Law