Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jane Doe (Mother) appeals the Bonneville County magistrate court’s termination of her parental rights to her two minor children, K.J.M. and K.M.M. (Children). The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) became involved in this case in November 2012, when it learned Mother and her boyfriend, who was also K.J.M.’s father, were blowing marijuana smoke in K.R.C.’s and K.J.M.’s faces. IDHW visited Mother’s home and noted it was "filthy with pills and drug paraphernalia scattered throughout the home[.]" Further investigation revealed that Mother’s boyfriend was physically abusing Mother. Mother’s boyfriend was arrested for felony strangulation of Mother. Apparently, Mother dropped the charges "due to him being the sole caretaker of the children and needing his help . . . ." In addition, Mother’s boyfriend was physically abusing K.R.C. and K.J.M. Mother reported she had witnessed her boyfriend "shake 4 month old [K.J.M.] . . . and hit[] 1 year old [K.R.C.], leaving bruises on her legs and bottom." Even so, Mother routinely placed them in the care of her boyfriend while she went to work, not "fully comprehend[ing] the danger she [was] placing her children in . . . ." IDHW petitioned to terminate Mother's parental rights to the children in late 2015. After an eight-day trial where over forty witnesses testified and close to 200 exhibits were admitted, the magistrate found termination appropriate on several bases, and entered a judgment of termination. Mother appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Dept. of Health & Welfare v. Jane Doe (2016-32)" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a lawsuit brought by a contractor, Michael Kelly against his former client, Pamela Wagner, alleging nonpayment of amounts due to him for the performance of construction work. The district court found in favor of Kelly and awarded him a total judgment of $13,762.54 ($4,694.64 of damages and $9,067.90 of prejudgment interest). On appeal, Wagner argued that the district court erred in finding that Kelly was owed for the construction work. She further argued that the district court erred in awarding prejudgment interest to Kelly. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Kelly v. Wagner" on Justia Law

In 2011, John Wyman first visited Julie L. Scott, P.A., to address a lesion he had discovered on his left heel. P.A. Scott diagnosed the lesion as an infected wart, prescribed antibiotic ointment, and instructed John to return for a follow-up appointment, scheduled for January 5, 2012. For reasons unclear, John did not attend the follow-up appointment. John returned to see P.A. Scott on April 19, 2012, because his lesion did not improve. Still believing the lesion was an infected wart, P.A. Scott froze it off during that appointment. She again instructed John to return for a follow-up appointment, scheduled for May 10, 2012. For reasons unclear, John did not attend the follow-up appointment. He never again returned to see P.A. Scott. John’s lesion, however, failed to improve. It would later be diagnosed as a stage IIIC malignant melanoma tumor, and not a wart. Nearly two years after the date of the biopsy, on August 28, 2014, the Wymans filed a pre-litigation screening application with the Idaho State Board of Medicine. On September 5, 2014, the Wymans lodged a complaint in district court, alleging medical malpractice claims against P.A. Scott and her employer, Center for Lifetime Health, LLC, for their alleged failure to perform a biopsy that would have revealed cancer. In the following medical malpractice suit against Scott, her employer and the hospital, the district court concluded a two-year statute of limitations barred the Wymans' claims. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Wyman v. Eck" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from an Industrial Commission (the Commission) order denying medical care benefits to Channel Rish. Rish worked as a cashier at Home Depot. While working on October 30, 2005, Rish slipped on a floor mat and injured her right knee. The injury ultimately required Rish to undergo three knee surgeries, which Dr. Casey Huntsman performed in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Roughly three months after Rish’s third surgery, Dr. Huntsman concluded Rish had achieved maximum medical improvement (MMI). Dr. Huntsman, however, further noted that Rish “definitely needs . . . continued pain management” with Dr. Holly Zoe. To that end, Rish visited Dr. Zoe for pain management treatment. Respondents remained skeptical as to Rish’s continued medical care with Dr. Zoe. Rish filed a worker’s compensation complaint to seek past and future disability benefits and medical care. Respondents answered and conceded Rish was entitled to the already-paid disability benefits and medical care, but Respondents disputed whether she was entitled to additional disability benefits and medical care. After a hearing, the Commission held in Respondents’ favor. The Commission noted that Rish did not timely raise the issue of disability benefits, but concluded Rish was nevertheless entitled to no additional disability benefits. Further, the Commission concluded Rish was entitled to no additional medical care benefits because the medical care Rish received after August 9, 2007 (the date when Dr. Huntsman deemed her at MMI) was unreasonable. Rish appealed. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the Commission erred in holding that the medical care Rish received after August 9, 2007 was unreasonable. As such, the Court vacated the Commission’s denial of medical care benefits and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rish v. Home Depot" on Justia Law

Appellant Jason Zane Garner appeals the district court order revoking his probation and reinstating his sentence. Appellant Jason Zane Garner appeals the district court order revoking his probation and reinstating his sentence. Following his completion of a rider program, Garner was placed on supervised probation for five years. The terms of his probation included, among other things, that he: (1) not leave the Third Judicial District without written permission from his probation officer; (2) abide by the No Contact Order entered in the stalking case; and (3) follow the instructions of his probation officer. In May 2015, the stalking victim saw Garner outside Albertson’s in Boise. The victim exited her workplace and recognized Garner’s Toyota truck about thirty yards away in the parking lot in front of the grocery store. She took pictures of the truck (which were clear enough to reveal his license plate), then left the scene and notified police. Although she did not approach the truck or speak with Garner, she later testified that he was sitting in his truck and appeared to be smiling at her in the rearview mirror. A few days later, the victim reported to police that her neighbors had seen Garner driving past her house repeatedly. Following this incident, an arrest warrant was issued for Garner for allegedly violating the terms of probation. Two hearings were subsequently conducted by two different district judges. One judge conducted an evidentiary hearing. A second judge conducted the disposition hearing. At the disposition hearing, Garner’s probation officer testified that Garner changed his story repeatedly when asked about his presence in Boise and did not take responsibility for his actions. When asked if Garner’s behavior merited imposition of the sentence (or whether he should be placed on another rider), the probation officer testified that further efforts to rehabilitate Garner would likely be unsuccessful. The district court imposed the entire ten-year term of imprisonment, with six years fixed. Garner filed a Rule 35 motion to reduce his sentence. Because Garner did not produce any new or additional evidence to support the motion, it was denied. Garner timely appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Idaho v. Garner" on Justia Law

The State appealed the district court’s grant of post-conviction relief for John Wurdemann. Wurdemann was convicted on seven felony counts related to the June 2000 attack of Linda LeBrane. In its order, the district court ruled that Wurdemann’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated because trial counsel failed to properly challenge the admission of eyewitness identifications. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Wurdemann v. Idaho" on Justia Law

Gordon Paving Company, Inc., Northwest Sand & Gravel, Inc., Blackrock Land Holdings, LLC (collectively, “Gordon Paving”), Brandon Hansen, an individual, Brian Hansen, an individual, Carol Hansen GPC Nevada Trust, Craig Hansen GPC Nevada Trust, Canyon Equipment and Truck Service, Inc., and Doe Entities owned by Brian, Brandon, and Craig Hansen (collectively “Guarantors”) appealed the district court’s denial of their motion to set aside default in a breach of personal guarantee action brought by AgStar Financial Services, ACA (“AgStar”). Between 2007 and 2008, Gordon Paving borrowed $10 million from AgStar. In addition to real and personal property collateral, the indebtedness was secured by separate guarantee agreements executed by Guarantors. By 2012, Gordon Paving had defaulted and AgStar sued for foreclosure. A year later, the district court entered a Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure against Gordon Paving. AgStar purchased the real property collateral at a foreclosure sale. AgStar moved for entry of a deficiency judgment for the difference between the unpaid judgment as of the time of the sale and its credit bids for the real property. The district court denied AgStar’s motion for a deficiency judgment, finding that the reasonable value of the properties that AgStar purchased by credit bids was nearly two million dollars greater than Gordon Paving’s indebtedness. In an Opinion issued in early 2017, the Idaho Supreme Court held that Gordon Paving’s indebtedness to AgStar had been fully satisfied and discharged. AgStar brought the present action against Guarantors, bringing a number of theories, including breach of personal guarantee. The district court ultimately entered a judgment against Guarantors on the cause of action based on breach of their personal guarantees. AgStar agreed to dismiss the other claims with prejudice because the judgment on the guarantees represented the total remaining amount due on Gordon Paving’s indebtedness. AgStar moved for an award of attorney fees and costs, which was granted. Guarantors timely appealed, but finding no error in defaulting the Guarantors, and in the award of fees and costs, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Agstar Financial v. Gordon Paving Co, Inc." on Justia Law

Thomas Kelley appealed the district court’s award of restitution entered under Idaho Code section 37-2732(k). The Idaho Court of Appeals vacated the restitution award, and the Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for review. Because the Court concluded the State failed to support its request for restitution with sufficient evidence, it vacated the award. View "Idaho v. Kelley" on Justia Law

Jamie Nelson appealed the district court’s award of restitution entered under Idaho Code section 37-2732(k). The Idaho Court of Appeals vacated the restitution award, and the Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for review. Because the Court concluded the State failed to support its request for restitution with sufficient evidence, it vacated the award. View "Idaho v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Jeremy Cunningham appealed a district court’s award of restitution. In September 2014, a jury convicted Cunningham of possession of a controlled substance. The district court imposed a unified sentence of five years, with one-and-one-half years fixed. Thereafter, the district court held a restitution hearing, where the State sought to recoup its prosecution costs under Idaho Code section 37-2732(k). The State requested $2,240, which reflects 16 hours of work billed at $140 per hour. Cunningham argued the hourly rate was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence, but he offered no evidence or further arguments on his behalf. The district court awarded the State its requested prosecution costs, plus $100 “for lab fees under the Drug Donation Act.” The award totaled $2,340. Cunningham appealed, and the Idaho Court of Appeals vacated the award and remanded for further consistent proceedings. The Court of Appeals held that insufficient evidence supported the award because it was based only on the State’s unsworn Statement of Costs. The Idaho Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for review and concluded the restitution award was indeed not supported by evidence. “Restitution under section 37-2732(k) must be based on a preponderance of the evidence, and an award of restitution will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence.” Here, the Court found that the State’s unsworn Statement of Costs did not rise to the level of “substantial evidence.” The Court held that unsworn representations, even by an officer of the court, do not constitute “substantial evidence” upon which restitution under section 37-2732(k) could be based. View "Idaho v. Cunningham" on Justia Law