Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was the definition of the width of an easement for an irrigation pipeline. Dalton Gardens Irrigation District (the District) owned pipeline and intended to replace an existing four-inch pipe with a ten-inch pipe. A portion of the pipeline crosses Diane Ruddy-Lamarca's property. The parties agreed that an easement of some kind existed in favor of the District. However, they disagreed regarding the nature and width of that easement. The district court held that the District had an express easement and an easement by prescription that were identical in location and sixteen feet wide. The District appealed, claiming that the district court erred by restricting the easement to sixteen feet in width and requiring it to make every effort to preserve trees and a drain field on Ruddy-Lamarca's property. Upon review of the district court order, and finding no error in its decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Ruddy-Lamarca v. Dalton Gardens" on Justia Law

Kootenai County (the County) and Panhandle Health District No. 1 (the District) filed an action against Peggy Harriman-Sayler and Terry Sayler, seeking injunctive relief to prevent the Saylers from operating a recreational vehicle (RV) park without a conditional use permit, from occupying or using a building without a certificate of occupancy, and from operating a subsurface sewage system without a permit. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the County and the District. The Saylers appealed, asking the Supreme Court to vacate the district court's judgment. Their argument on appeal was that the RV park did not require a permit because it was allowed as a nonconforming use and that the sewage system and other building were properly permitted. Finding no error in the district court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Kootenai County v. Harriman-Sayler" on Justia Law

Appellants Hobson Fabricating Corp. (Hobson) and SE/Z Construction, LLC (SE/Z) appealed a district court decision in their case against the State of Idaho, Department of Administration, Division of Public Works (DPW) regarding costs and attorney fees. Prior to the district court's decision, the parties had settled all of their claims but for costs and attorney fees. The district court declared that all parties had prevailed in part and were to bear their own costs and fees. Hobson and SE/Z appealed the decision, arguing that the district court abused its discretion and should have found that they were the overall prevailing party. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order that the Contractors and DPW bear their own costs and fees and its order that Hobson pay the individual defendants' costs. View "Hobson Fabricating Corp v. SE/Z Construction" on Justia Law

A mother appealed a magistrate court's order terminating her parental rights with respect to her youngest child. John Doe was born in September, 2011, and was declared to be in imminent danger two days after birth. John's mother, Jane Doe (Mother) had eight other children, all with her ex-husband (Father). One died shortly after birth, and the others are aged three to fifteen years old. Mother was not caring for any of these children when the Department of Health and Welfare (DHW) removed John from her care. In its Memorandum Decision and Order issued the same day, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that Mother "cannot parent this child now and that inability will continue indefinitely" and termination of her parental rights would be in the child's best interest. Mother's argument on appeal focused on whether the magistrate court properly weighed the evidence in making its best interest of the child determination. Upon review, the Supreme Court was satisfied that substantial evidence supported the magistrate court's findings, and accordingly held that the magistrate court did not err in determining that termination of Mother's parental rights was in John's best interest. View "Idaho Dept of Health & Welfare v. Jane (2012-05) Doe" on Justia Law

This case appealed a district court's denial of Petitioner Jim Brannon's election contest of the Coeur d'Alene city council election in 2009. In the official vote total, Brannon lost the election for seat 2 of the city council to Mike Kennedy by five votes. Brannon then filed an election contest that alleged numerous irregularities and sought to set aside, void, or annul the election. After a bench trial, the district court issued a memorandum decision that affirmed the election result, finding insufficient illegal votes or irregularities to change the outcome of the election. On appeal, Brannon argued that the City delegated its election duties to Kootenai County in contravention of Idaho law, that the district court made numerous factual and legal errors at trial, and that the district court erred in denying Brannon's motion to disqualify and motion for new trial. Upon review and finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court. View "Brannon v. City of Coeur D'Alene" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on an appeal from several district court rulings in an ongoing dispute between Kyle Athay (Athay) and Rich County, Utah (Rich County). Athay was injured in a motor vehicle collision with Daryl Ervin (Ervin), who was fleeing police pursuit. Subsequently, Athay filed a civil suit against the pursuing law enforcement officers from Bear Lake County, Idaho and Rich County. After "Athay II," a jury trial commenced with Rich County as the sole remaining defendant. The jury returned a special verdict for Athay and awarded him $2,720,126.00 in economic damages and $1,000,000 in non-economic damages. The jury found that Ervin was 70% responsible for Athay’s injuries, and that Rich County was responsible for the remaining 30%. On appeal, Rich County argued that the district court made multiple errors: that the district court abused its discretion when it declined to disqualify the presiding judge for the limited purpose of deciding Rich County’s First Motion for a New Trial; that the district court erred by denying Rich County’s first and second motions for new trial; and that the district court erred when it denied Rich County’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the district court. View "Athay v. Rich County, Utah" on Justia Law

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) appealed the district court's post-judgment orders (1) refusing to lift a portion of an injunction and (2) declaring the Idaho Outdoor Sport Shooting Range Act unconstitutional. In 2004, IDFG made a public proposal to renovate the Farragut Shooting Range, (owned and operated by IDFG since World War II), based on the "Vargas Master Plan." Citizens Against Range Expansion (CARE), an unincorporated non-profit association comprised of individuals who reside near the range, contended that the plan would greatly increase range usage, and harm the community. CARE sued IDFG in 2005 for nuisance and other related causes of action regarding the range's operation. CARE's claims were grounded in both safety and noise concerns regarding the increased use of the range, and its proposed expansion. Among other relief, CARE sought to enjoin IDFG's operation of the range. The case proceeded to a court trial in December of 2006 and in February of 2007 the court issued its memorandum decision wherein it determined that CARE was entitled to relief enjoining further operation of the Farragut Range until IDFG completed certain safety improvements. Upon completion of its range improvements, IDFG filed a Motion for Partial Lifting of Injunction. CARE then moved for summary judgment, claiming that the Act was a special law in violation of art. III, sec. 19 of the Idaho Constitution, and a deprivation of judicial power in violation of art. V, sec. 13. The district court issued summary judgment in favor of CARE on the constitutional issues in March of 2011. In its order, the court found that the Act was unconstitutional as a special law and a deprivation of judicial power. For this reason alone, it denied IDFG's Relief Motion with regard to the 501-shooter component. The court found that there remained disputed issues of fact regarding range safety. On August 25, 2011, following the evidentiary hearing on safety issues, the district court denied IDFG's Relief Motion with regard to the one component of the injunction. IDFG timely appealed to the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court: 1) reversed the district court's order holding that IDFG did not comply with the "500-shooter" component of the injunction; 2) concluded as a matter of law that IDFG complied with the 500-shooter component, and lifted that component of the injunction; 3) reversed the district court's order holding the Act to be unconstitutional; 4) remanded this case to the district court to determine whether IDFG has complied with the "501-shooter" component of the injunction. View "Citizens Against Range Expansion v. Idaho Fish & Game" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether an agricultural exemption for real property taxes was not available to Petitioner-Appellant Thompson Development, LLC because agricultural use of the property in question would violate a local zoning ordinance. Because the Supreme Court found that the zoning ordinance was irrelevant to qualifying for the exemption, the Court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Thompson Development v. Latah Co Bd of Equalization" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from the district court's reversal of the Idaho Transportation Department's (Department) suspension of Johnathan Paul Van Camp's driver's license subsequent to a urine analysis that revealed the presence of cyclobenzaprine in his system. The district court held that the Department had not properly shown that cyclobenzaprine was intoxicating. The Department timely appealed, arguing that the arresting officer's observations of impairment, in combination with an evidentiary test revealing a drug in Van Camp's system, were sufficient to permit an administrative license suspension. The Department asked the Supreme Court to reverse the district court's decision vacating the suspension. Finding that Van Camp failed to establish a proper ground to support an order vacating the suspension, the Supreme Court reversed the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Idaho Dept. of Trans. v. Van Camp" on Justia Law

The Idaho Wool Growers Association (IWGA) and several of its members brought suit against the State of Idaho, claiming that the State failed to protect domestic sheep operators from curtailment of their grazing allotments by the United States Forest Service. The curtailment of the allotments was designed to accommodate the reintroduction of bighorn sheep in the Hells Canyon area. In their complaint, the Wool Growers alleged that the State was obligated to redress damage caused to domestic sheep operations by virtue of the reintroduction. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Wool Growers appealed that dismissal, but upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Idaho Wool Growers v. State of Idaho Fish & Game" on Justia Law