Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Board of Tax Appeals' (the BTA) denied appellant Jayo Development, Inc.'s application for a business inventory property tax exemption. In 2012, Jayo Development applied for a property tax exemption pursuant to Idaho Code section 63-602W(4), claiming that the property qualified as site improvements held by a land developer. The Ada County Board of Equalization (the BOE) denied the application. Subsequently, the BTA and the district court both affirmed the denial. On appeal, Jayo Development argued: (1) that the plain language of the statute entitled it to the exemption;, (2) that the district court erred in relying on IDAPA 35.01.03.620 in denying Jayo Development the tax exemption; and (3) that the 2013 amendment of Idaho Code section 63-602W(4) clarified the legislature's intent and supports its interpretation of the statute. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Jayo Development, Inc. v. Ada County Bd. of Equalization" on Justia Law

Thomas and Rebecca Arnold appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Stanley. In 2012, the City provided notice to the Arnolds (and other interested parties) of the date and time for three public hearings and a regular city council meeting, all scheduled to take place on August 9, 2012. The first of the three public hearings was noticed to begin at 5:00 p.m. and was for the purpose of receiving public comment on proposed Ordinance 189, the ordinance that the Arnolds alleged affected their property rights. The second and third hearings were noticed to begin at 5:15 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., respectively (and were for the purpose of public comment on matters not at issue here). The regular city council meeting was noticed to begin at 6:00 p.m. The first two meetings were held at their scheduled times. The third meeting began five minutes early, at 5:25 p.m., and concluded at 5:29 p.m. The regular city council meeting, scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m., commenced at 5:31 p.m. and adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Prior to the start of the 6:00 p.m. meeting, the City did not amend the notices it had provided or otherwise notify the public that the meetings would begin earlier than scheduled. The early start time of the 6:00 p.m. meeting and the City's failure to provide amended notice of the earlier start time were the issues presented in this appeal to the Supreme Court: it was at the 6:00 p.m. meeting that the mayor and city council deliberated toward a decision on Ordinance 189, eventually voting to adopt the ordinance. Although the Arnolds were fully aware of the agenda items to be discussed at the various meetings, at no time from the outset of the first meeting at 5:03 p.m. until the final meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. did they attend the meeting; the Arnolds conceded at oral argument that they had no intention of attending the meeting. Following adoption of Ordinance 189, the Arnolds filed an action against the City under Idaho Code section 67-2347(6), seeking to have the ordinance declared null and void because the City held the 6:00 p.m. meeting in violation of Idaho's open meeting law by starting the meeting early and failing to provide notice of the earlier start time. The district court held the Arnolds lacked standing to bring an enforcement action because the plain language of Section 67-2347(6) allows standing for such an action only to one who is actually affected by a violation of the open meeting law, instead of being affected only by a substantive action taken at the meeting. The court granted the City's motion for summary judgment on this basis. The Arnolds appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court: because a plain reading of the statute contradicted the Arnolds' argument, and because they did not even claim to have been actually harmed by the 6:00 p.m. meeting's early start time, the Court found that their appeal was brought without a reasonable basis in fact or law. View "Arnold v. City of Stanley" on Justia Law

917 Lusk, LLC appealed the Boise City Council's decision to grant a conditional use permit to Royal Boulevard Associates, LP to build an apartment complex. Royal's predecessor in interest applied for permission to build a 352,000 square foot, five-story, multi-family apartment complex called River Edge Apartments. The site of the proposed construction was near Boise State University, adjacent to the Boise River, east of Ann Morrison Park, and west of property owned by Lusk. The site was zoned Residential Office with a Design Review Overlay (R-OD). Multi-family housing was an allowed use for this location. However, the Boise City Code (BCC) required a conditional use permit (CUP) in order to construct a building more than 35 feet tall in an R-OD zone. If constructed as planned, River Edge will have been between 59 and 63 feet tall. Lusk appealed the Boise Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to the City Council, contending that the Commission's decision failed to address the requirements for a CUP. The district court affirmed the City Council's decision and Lusk appealed. Lusk argued that because the Commission did not follow the correct procedure for granting a CUP, the City Council erred in affirming the Commission's decision. The Supreme Court agreed, reversed the district court's affirmance of the City Council's approval of the Commission's decision to grant the CUP to Royal. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "917 LUSK, LLC v. City of Boise" on Justia Law

Claimant-appellant Terri Boyd-Davis filed for unemployment compensation on January 27, 2013, and began receiving benefits. IDOL claims to have mailed an "online review letter" to Boyd-Davis' listed address on March 6, 2013. The Online Review Letter indicated that Boyd-Davis had been selected to provide additional information concerning her unemployment insurance claim for the week of March 2, 2013. The Online Review Letter instructed Boyd-Davis that she would need to complete work search documentation online. The letter also indicated that failure to complete the online eligibility review by 5:00 p.m. on March 15, 2013, would result in the denial of her benefits. Boyd-Davis claimed she did not receive the Online Review Letter. When Boyd-Davis had not provided the requested information by the deadline, IDOL issued an Eligibility Determination on March 19, 2013, indicating that Boyd-Davis had failed to complete the online eligibility review and as a result was ineligible for benefits effective March 10, 2013. Boyd-Davis filed a protest. A telephonic hearing was scheduled for April 18, 2013. On April 1, 2013, Boyd-Davis provided the information IDOL had requested in the Online Review Letter. As soon as the requested information was provided, Boyd-Davis' benefits were reinstated for the week beginning March 31, 2013. However, benefits were not reinstated for the period of March 10 through March 30, 2013. Boyd-Davis proceeded with the April 18, 2013, hearing seeking restoration of her benefits for the period of March 10 through March 30, 2013. Following the hearing, an IDOL Appeals Examiner affirmed the original eligibility determination and concluded that Boyd-Davis' benefits had been properly denied. After review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding that Boyd-Davis presented evidence that "would permit reasonable minds to conclude that the Online Review Letter was not received." The Court concluded that the Commission erred in its application of the presumption of delivery articulated in Idaho Code section 72-1368(5) of the online letter. Furthermore, the Commission abused its discretion in determining that Boyd-Davis was ineligible for unemployment benefits for the period from March 10, 2013, through March 30, 2013. View "Boyd-Davis v. Macomber Law, PLLC" on Justia Law

Joan Thrall appealed an Idaho Industrial Commission decision denying her unemployment benefits. The Commission concluded that Thrall was not entitled to benefits because she voluntarily resigned from St. Luke's Regional Medical Center without good cause. Thrall timely appealed, arguing that she was discharged and that St. Luke's failed to show the discharge was for misconduct. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded this case for further proceedings. Because the Commission's factual findings demonstrate that Thrall satisfied her burden to show that she was discharged, Thrall was entitled to benefits unless the discharge was for misconduct in connection with her employment, with St. Luke's carrying the burden to show the discharge was for misconduct. When the Commission mistakenly concluded that Thrall voluntarily resigned, it improperly placed the burden on Thrall to show that she was not discharged for misconduct. "Though the Commission's order includes a variety of statements regarding misconduct and Thrall's errors in the performance of her job duties, it is unclear to what extent those statements were a consequence of its misallocation of the burden of proof." View "Thrall v. St. Luke's Regional Med Cntr" on Justia Law

Charles Bell was employed by Sears from September 25, 2012, to May 16, 2013. During that period, Bell regularly filed for unemployment benefits with the Idaho Department of Labor (DOL). He received benefits for each week beginning with the week ending on Sept. 29, 2012, through the week ending on March 23, 2013. On March 26, 2013, the DOL discovered discrepancies between the weekly gross wages reported by Bell in his unemployment filings and the gross wages reported to the DOL by Sears. Based on the information provided by Bell, the DOL determined that Bell willfully misstated his gross wages for nineteen weeks in which he received benefits and that he was ineligible for benefits for nine weeks in which he claimed to have worked part-time hours despite working at least forty hours. Bell was disqualified from receiving benefits for fifty-two weeks, ordered to repay benefits he received for the relevant periods, and ordered to pay penalties for willfully misrepresenting his gross wages and the hours he worked in particular weeks. Bell appealed the Idaho Industrial Commission's holding that he willfully made false statements or willfully failed to report material facts for the purpose of obtaining unemployment benefits. Because the Commission’s decision was supported by substantial and competent evidence, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Charles Bell v. Idaho Dept. of Labor" on Justia Law

Idaho's Bureau of Occupational Licenses (Bureau) investigated and initiated disciplinary proceedings against petitioner-appellant Timothy Williams after it received complaints that he had engaged in various forms of professional misconduct as a licensed real estate appraiser. Ultimately, Idaho's Board of Real Estate Appraisers (Board) revoked Williams' license, imposed $4,000 in fines, and required Williams to pay the Board's attorney fees and costs. The district court, acting in an appellate capacity, affirmed the Board's decision to revoke Williams' license and to impose fines, but reversed the Board's order that Williams pay its attorney fees and costs. Williams appealed and the Board cross-appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Williams v. Idaho State Board of Real Estate Appraisers" on Justia Law

Cable One, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona. In 2005, Cable One received business income from four types of activities in Idaho: cable television services, internet access services, advertising services, and cable modem leasing. In its Idaho income tax return for that year, it included revenues earned from all of those activities except revenues from providing internet access services to Idaho customers. It excluded those revenues on the ground that providing such services to customers in Idaho constituted Arizona sales, although it also excluded such revenues from its 2005 Arizona income tax return on the ground that they came from Idaho sales. In 2008, the Idaho Tax Commission issued a notice of deficiency determination asserting a tax and interest deficiency on Cable One for the 2005 tax year. Cable One petitioned for redetermination, which the Tax Commission denied. Cable One then filed a complaint in the district court, which tried the matter de novo, and ruled in favor of the Tax Commission. Cable One then appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Cable One, Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Commission" on Justia Law

John Doe was the biological father of T.C. Doe was a juvenile when T.C. was born. Doe paid Mother a total of $52.00 in child support, despite a court order requiring him to pay Mother child support of $253.00 per month. Doe owed approximately eight thousand dollars in unpaid child support. Doe never provided T.C. or Mother with any alternate form of support such as clothing, diapers, or food. During T.C.’s life, Doe was regularly incarcerated and had no contact with T.C. for months at a time; including a substantial period of time that the child protection proceedings were ongoing. Doe has been unable to maintain employment or a home and typically resides in the homes of various girlfriends. Doe was addicted to methamphetamine and, when not in custody, he used methamphetamine. Doe had an extensive criminal record and has been a defendant in more than forty criminal matters. A petition was filed under the Child Protective Act (CPA) asking a magistrate court to place T.C under the supervision of the Department. The same day, the magistrate court ordered the removal of T.C. on the basis that continuation in the home would be contrary to T.C.’s welfare. The magistrate court placed T.C. in the care of the Department of Child Services. Doe learned of the Department’s petition when his aunt informed him of the proceedings. His parental rights to T.C. were ultimately terminated on grounds that the trial court found Doe neglected T.C., and that it was in the child's best interests to have Doe's parental rights terminated. Doe appealed, but finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order. View "Health & Welfare v. John Doe (13-29)" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a Snake River Basin Adjudication (SRBA) court decision on whether Idaho law required a remark authorizing storage rights to "refill,"under priority, space vacated for flood control. The SRBA court concluded that a remark was not necessary because a storage water right that is filled cannot refill under priority before affected junior appropriators satisfy their water rights once. The court declined to address when the quantity element of a storage water right is considered filled. Seven Magic Valley irrigation districts and canal companies (collectively the "Surface Water Coalition") appealed this decision in Docket No. 40974. The Boise Project Board appealed this decision in Docket No. 40975. Because both cases appealed the same decision of the SRBA court and had significant overlap, the Supreme Court addressed them together in this opinion, and held that the SRBA court abused its discretion in designating the question of whether Idaho law required remark as Basin-Wide Issue 17. The SRBA court did not abuse its discretion by declining to address when the quantity element of a storage water right is considered filled or in stating that such a determination was within the Director's discretion. View "In re: SRBA" on Justia Law