Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case involves a dispute over the sale of surplus state property owned by the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). The property, located at 3311 West State Street in Boise, was declared surplus after a flood rendered its largest building unusable. The Idaho Department of Administration (DOA) initiated a bidding process, and the petitioners, a group of business entities, submitted the highest bid. Despite negotiating a purchase and sale agreement, the DOA did not finalize the sale due to legislative actions that revoked its authority to dispose of the property and transferred control back to the ITD Board.The petitioners filed an original action in the Idaho Supreme Court seeking writs of prohibition and mandate. They argued that the legislative provisions revoking the DOA's authority were unconstitutional, violating the single-subject rule of the Idaho Constitution. They sought a declaratory judgment to invalidate these provisions and compel the DOA to complete the sale. The Idaho House of Representatives and its Speaker intervened, and the State Board of Examiners disclaimed further participation, having fulfilled its statutory duties.The Idaho Supreme Court held that the petitioners lacked standing to bring the action. The court found that while the petitioners demonstrated a distinct and palpable injury from the halted sale, they failed to show that a favorable decision would redress their injury. The court noted that the petitioners did not have a legally enforceable right to purchase the property, as the DOA had discretion in concluding the sale. Additionally, the court determined that the petitioners did not meet the criteria for relaxed standing, as other parties, such as the DOA and ITD, could potentially bring the constitutional claim. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition for writs of prohibition and mandate. View "Hawkins Companies, LLC v. State" 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

John Gomez, Gilbert Hurtado, and Jesus Hurtado were members of G&H Dairy, LLC, which defaulted on its loans in 2013. To avoid bankruptcy, they negotiated with Wells Fargo and signed a Letter of Intent (LOI) to distribute G&H's assets among themselves. Gomez and Jesus Hurtado purchased the personal property assets and assumed portions of G&H’s debt, but they could not agree on the sales price for the real property. Gomez sued the Hurtado brothers and G&H for breach of contract, estoppel, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty, and sought judicial dissolution of G&H. The Hurtados counterclaimed for damages and also sought dissolution.The District Court of the Fifth Judicial District of Idaho granted summary judgment for the Hurtados on Gomez’s breach of contract claim, ruling the LOI unenforceable, but denied summary judgment on the other claims. After a bench trial, the court ordered the dissolution and winding up of G&H and dismissed the remaining claims. Gomez appealed.The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the district court’s decision. It held that the LOI was unenforceable as it was an offer contingent on future agreements and lacked definitive terms. The court also found no breach of fiduciary duty by the Hurtados, as the LOI was unenforceable and the parties had not agreed on the real property transfer terms. The court dismissed Gomez’s quasi-estoppel claim, concluding that the Hurtados did not change their legal position since the LOI was not enforceable. The court also upheld the district court’s final accounting and winding up of G&H, finding no error in the characterization of transactions or member allocations. The court awarded attorney fees to the Hurtados, determining that Gomez’s appeal was pursued unreasonably and without legal foundation. View "Gomez v. Hurtado" on Justia Law

Robert Nelson, a car salesman, sustained a back injury on March 29, 2018, while working for Dependable Auto Sales. He experienced significant back pain the following day, leading to a diagnosis of acute back pain with left radiculopathy. Nelson filed a worker’s compensation claim and underwent various treatments and evaluations. Medical opinions varied, with some attributing his back issues to preexisting conditions and obesity, while others recognized a work-related aggravation. Nelson also had a history of preexisting injuries, including knee surgeries and osteoarthritis.Nelson settled his worker’s compensation claim with his employer in September 2019 and subsequently filed a claim against the Idaho Industrial Special Indemnity Fund (ISIF) for total and permanent disability benefits. The Idaho Industrial Commission denied his claim, finding that Nelson failed to prove he was totally and permanently disabled or that he suffered a permanent impairment due to the work-related accident. The Commission’s decision was influenced by its determination that Nelson was not a credible witness, citing inconsistencies in his testimony and a prior conviction for insurance fraud.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the Commission’s decision. The Court found that substantial and competent evidence supported the Commission’s credibility determination, despite some errors in the Commission’s findings. The Court upheld the Commission’s conclusion that Nelson was not totally and permanently disabled, as the evidence indicated that there was still a labor market for him, even under the most restrictive limitations. The Court did not address the alternative finding regarding permanent impairment. View "Nelson v. State of Idaho, Industrial Special Indemnity Fund" 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 an insurance dispute following a fatal car accident. Jay Lanningham was killed in a car accident caused by an underinsured motorist. Lanningham had an insurance policy with Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Idaho that included underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. However, Farm Bureau denied the UIM claims made by Lanningham's adult children, Jeremy and Jamie, for their father's wrongful death. The insurance company argued that the siblings did not qualify as insured persons under the policy since they did not reside with Lanningham.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho granted Farm Bureau's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the insurance company rightfully denied payment to Jamie and Jeremy as they did not qualify as insured persons under the policy.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the lower court's judgment in favor of Farm Bureau. The court found that the plain language of Lanningham’s insurance policy precluded non-insureds from recovering UIM benefits. The court also held that the policy did not violate Idaho Code section 49-1212(12), which prohibits reduced liability coverage for family or household members. Furthermore, the court found that the case law precedent, Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Idaho v. Eisenman, was applicable and remains good law. The court concluded that neither Jamie nor Jeremy, as non-insured heirs, could recover UIM benefits under the plain language of the policy and Idaho Code section 41-2502. View "Lanningham v. Farm Bureau" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Thomas E. Hennig, Jr., who was discharged from his job at Money Metals Exchange, L.L.C. after making a controversial comment on the company's instant messaging system. Hennig referred to himself as his employer’s “good little Nazi” in a joke about enforcing the company’s time clock rules. After his termination, Hennig applied for unemployment benefits, but his application was denied by the Idaho Department of Labor (IDOL) on the grounds that he was discharged for misconduct connected with his employment. Hennig appealed this decision to the Idaho Industrial Commission, which upheld the IDOL's decision.Hennig then appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho, arguing that the Commission’s decision was unsupported by competent and substantial evidence. He contended that his use of the term "Nazi" was not objectively unprofessional and that the company had tolerated racist remarks from another employee. The Supreme Court of Idaho reversed the Commission’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court found that the Commission had failed to properly analyze whether the company's expectations of Hennig's behavior were objectively reasonable, given evidence that it had tolerated racist comments from another co-worker and then promoted him to a supervisory position. The court also found that the Commission had failed to consider Hennig's claim that the company had encouraged his unorthodox humor. View "Hennig v. Money Metals Exchange" 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