Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court stemmed from a district court decision affirming the approval of a subdivision by the Board of County Commissioners of Clearwater County. In approving the subdivision, the Board approved three variances granted by the Clearwater County Planning and Zoning Commission with respect to the road providing access to the subdivision. A portion of the access road crossed over land owned by Edward and Donilee Shinn, who opposed the variances and petitioned the district court for judicial review. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Board erred when it failed to make the approval of the variance application expressly contingent upon judicial resolution of the access issue. The Court remanded the case back to the district court to determine whether the Shinns' substantial rights were prejudiced by the Board's decision. View "Shinn v. Bd of Co Comm Clearwater Co" on Justia Law

In early June of 2007, Karrin Massey consumed at least one, but perhaps several, poultry pot pies that were manufactured by ConAgra Food, Inc. and sold under the Banquet brand name. Soon after, Karrin, who was six months pregnant at the time, developed salmonellosis. After an outbreak of salmonella was linked to Banquet pot pies, it was discovered that Karrin's strain of salmonella matched the strain of salmonella found in the contaminated pot pies. Karrin, her husband, Mark Massey, and their daughter Emma filed suit against ConAgra, alleging claims of product liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. The district court eventually granted ConAgra's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the Masseys had failed to establish the pot pies in question were defective. The Masseys filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The Masseys then appealed to the Supreme Court. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred: (1) in determining that the Masseys failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact that the pot pies were defective; (2) in granting summary judgment on the issue of negligence; (3) in concluding the Masseys waived their right to challenge the district court's denial of their motion to reconsider; and (4) in finding that the Masseys' failure to warn claim was not adequately pleaded. The Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Massey v. Conagra Foods" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court in this case was over attorney fees. Defendants Aeroplanes Over Idaho ("AOI") and Holbrook Maslen were ordered to pay fees over a dispute arising from the claim of lien filed by AOI on a PT-23 Fairchild airplane owned by the Idaho Aviation Hall of Fame ("IAHOF") and transferred to the Idaho Military Historical Society ("IMHS"). Holbrook Maslen, the President of AOI, stored the Fairchild airplane owned by IAHOF for approximately nine months. IAHOF transferred title of the airplane to IMHS. The Defendants refused to surrender possession of the airplane and filed a claim of lien with the FAA seeking compensation for claimed storage and maintenance expenses they incurred on the airplane. IMHS filed suit against the Defendants who counterclaimed against IMHS. After a bench trial, the district court ordered the return of the airplane to IMHS and found that IMHS failed to establish damages on its claims. The district court also found that the Defendants failed to prove their counterclaims. The district court further ruled that AOI and Maslen were jointly liable for attorney fees because the Defendants' defense of this case was frivolous. Defendants appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court record supported the district court's determination that the IMHS was the prevailing party, and that the court did not err in awarding IMHS attorney fees. View "Idaho Military Historical Society v. Maslen" on Justia Law

In 2005, John Block purchased property in Lewiston from Jack Streibick to develop. Block submitted an application to resubdivide the property into three residential lots, which Lewiston approved. Prior to Block's purchase of the property, Lewiston issued two separate permits to Streibick allowing him to place and grade fill in the area of those lots. In 2006, Block received permits from Lewiston to construct homes on each of the three lots. During construction of the homes, Block hired engineering firms to test compaction of the finished grade for the footings on the lots. Following the construction of the homes, Lewiston issued Block certificates of occupancy for each of the homes after conducting inspections that found the homes to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes and standards. In April 2007, Block sold the home and property at 159 Marine View Drive. In November of that year, the owner reported a crack in the home's basement. Around that same time, settling was observed at the other two properties. In early December 2007, Block repurchased 159 from the owners. He also consulted with engineers regarding options for immediate repair to the homes. As early as February 2009, further settling problems were reported at the properties. After Lewiston inspected the properties in May following a gas leak at 153, it posted notice that the residential structures on 153 and 159 were unsafe to occupy. Block ultimately filed a Notice of Claim for Damages with Lewiston that also named City Engineer Lowell Cutshaw as a defendant, but did not effectuate process on Lewiston and Cutshaw until ninety days had elapsed from the date he had filed the Notice of Claim. The City defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Block's claims should be dismissed because he failed to timely file a Notice of Claim with Lewiston. This first motion for summary judgment was denied because a question of material fact existed concerning whether Block reasonably should have discovered his claim against Lewiston prior to 2009. The City defendants filed a second motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all of Block's claims against them, arguing that they were immune from liability for all of these claims under the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA) and that Block could not establish that he was owed a duty. The district court granted this second summary judgment motion dismissing Block's claims based on the application of the economic loss rule. The court also held that immunity under the ITCA and failure to establish a duty provided alternate grounds for dismissal of Block's claims. Block appealed on the issue of immunity. Finding no reversible error as to that issue, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Block v. City of Lewiston" on Justia Law

Bob Boren appealed his conviction entered upon his conditional guilty plea to unlawful possession of a firearm. Boren claimed that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charge. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Idaho v. Boren" on Justia Law

In January 2007, the Bank of Idaho made two construction loans to developers who planned to construct a fourplex on each of two adjoining lots in Idaho Falls. The bank loaned one sum of money to build a fourplex on Lot 1 and another sum for a fourplex on Lot 2. The bank secured a separate policy of title insurance for each lot that was issued by the predecessor of First American Title Insurance Company. Each policy included an endorsement that the parties understood would insure against loss or damage that the bank might sustain by reason of a multifamily residence not being constructed on the lot. After discussion with representatives of the city, the developers changed their original plans and built both fourplexes on Lot 2 and built a parking lot with storm water retention and landscaping on Lot 1. The developers later defaulted on their loans, and the bank foreclosed on both deeds of trust. At the foreclosure sale, the bank acquired each lot by making a full credit bid on all amounts due and owing on the note secured by the deed of trust. In 2010, the bank submitted a claim under the title policy issue with respect to Lot 1 to recover under the endorsement. The insurance company rejected the claim and the bank filed suit to recover under the policy. The district court granted the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed this action. The bank then appealed. The Supreme Court concluded after its review that the district court erred in holding that the title insurance company had no liability under the policy. The endorsement provided that "[t]he Company hereby insures the owner of the indebtedness secured by the insured mortgage against loss or damage which the insured shall sustain by reason of the failure of [a multifamily residence to be built on Lot 1]." The endorsement insured against "loss or damage" that the bank argued was the failure of the multifamily residence to be constructed on the lot. It did not define what constituted "loss or damage." Subsections of the pertinent indemnity clause stated limits on the insurance company's liability, but it did not define loss or damage. Accordingly, the district court was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Bank of Idaho v. First American Title" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was an order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission holding that it had jurisdiction to decide whether the force majeure clauses in the Appellants' contracts with Idaho Power Company excused them from their contractual obligations to have their power generation facilities constructed and in operation by specified dates in order to sell electricity to Idaho Power. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commission. View "Idaho Power v. New Energy Two & IPUC" on Justia Law

On May 15, 2012, Karl Lewies won the primary election for the position of Fremont County Prosecuting Attorney. Because he had no opponent in the November general election, he knew he would be elected as the prosecuting attorney. He was scheduled to be sworn into office on January 14, 2013. On November 23, 2012, he filed two petitions for review against the county commissioners of Fremont County. One petition for review was on behalf of Flying “A” Ranch, Inc., and the other petition was on behalf of E. C. Gwaltney, III. The petitions sought to overturn the designation by the county commissioners of certain roads as being public roads rather than private roads. On January 7, 2013, the county commissioners, represented by Blake Hall, the deputy prosecutor hired by the prosecutor that Lewies had defeated in the primary, filed motions in both cases seeking to have Lewies disqualified from representing the petitioners in those cases. On the same day, Lewies filed motions in both cases to withdraw as counsel for the petitioners. In his supporting affidavit, Lewies stated that he would be sworn in as prosecuting attorney on January 14, 2013, at which time he would have a conflict of interest in continuing to represent the petitioners. In each of the cases, Lewies had named two of the commissioners in both their official and individual capacities. The commissioners filed motions in both cases to dismiss the actions against them. The court made preliminary rulings that Lewies could not represent any parties in the two cases; that the county would be awarded attorney fees against him personally for having to file the motion to disqualify; that an action against the two commissioners in their individual capacities could not be joined with a petition for judicial review; and that attorney fees would not be awarded against Lewies for having named them in their individual capacities. At another hearing, the issue of attorney fees against Lewies was discussed. After the parties argued that issue, the court entered a final decision in both cases awarding the county attorney fees against Lewies personally pursuant to Rule 11(a)(1). Lewies timely appealed. Because there was no legal basis for the award, the Supreme Court reversed. View "Flying "A" Ranch v. Bd. of Cty. Comm. of Fremont" on Justia Law

In 2009, Joseph Pierce filed suit against Steven McMullen and Highland Financial, LLC, seeking damages for various violations of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act and for breach of contract, all based upon an alleged scam in which the Defendants represented that they could protect Pierce from losing his equity in real property that was facing foreclosure. Pierce alleged that the Defendants obtained title to his real property pursuant to a promise to assume the loans secured by the property, to market and sell the property, and to pay him at least $50,000 or more from the sale proceeds, depending upon the sale price. He claimed that he deeded the property to the Defendants, that they failed to make the payments on the loans, and that the property was sold at a foreclosure sale. The complaint also alleged that Highland Financial was the alter ego of McMullen. Defendants did not appear, and on August 6, 2010, the court entered default against them. Mr. Pierce filed his amended complaint on May 11, 2011. The complaint simply added allegations to support an award of punitive damages. On June 13, 2011, Mr. McMullen filed a notice of appearance on behalf of himself and on behalf of Highland Financial. McMullen filed an answer to the amended complaint in his behalf and on the behalf of Highland Financial. McMullen was not licensed to practice law in Idaho, therefore his appearance on behalf of Highland Financial and the answer he filed on its behalf were nullities. In his answer, McMullen only denied the allegations regarding punitive damages. The case was scheduled for trial to commence on June 18, 2012. Plaintiff appeared with counsel, but the Defendants again did not appear. After discussion with Pierce’s counsel, the district court stated that McMullen "is defaulted, his answer is stricken, and the plaintiff prevails on their [sic] claims," then asked Pierce to present evidence as to damages. Pierce testified as did another alleged victim of. McMullen. At the conclusion of the testimony, Pierce’s counsel filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and a trial brief. The district court then issued its memorandum decision holding that. Pierce failed to prove any of his claims and ordered that his amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Pierce timely appealed. Largely because Defendants failed to appear and failed to answer the complaint and the facts of this case were therefore undisputed, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred in holding that Pierce did not prove his case. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Pierce v. McMullen" on Justia Law

Saint Alphonsus Diversified Care, Inc. (and others) formed a general partnership named MRI Associates. The parties executed a written partnership agreement (effective April 1985). The primary purpose of the partnership was to acquire and operate diagnostic and therapeutic devices, equipment, and accessories, beginning with a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner. MRI Associates and others formed two limited partnerships. One was named "MRI Limited Partnership," and it owned and operated an MRI scanner located on the hospital campus of Saint Alphonsus; the other limited partnership was named "MRI Mobile Limited Partnership," and it owned and operated mobile MRI scanners. For decades, a group of radiologists known as Gem State Radiologists had interpreted medical images pursuant to a contract that gave them the exclusive right to serve the radiological needs of patients of Saint Alphonsus. After the formation of MRI Associates, they interpreted MRI scans performed at MRI Center. In 1998, the Radiologists began planning to construct and operate an outpatient facility in Boise that was located away from the hospital. There were negotiations among the Radiologists, Saint Alphonsus, and MRI Associates to have one medical imaging entity, but those negotiations were unsuccessful. There was evidence that Saint Alphonsus was negotiating against MRI Associates with the Radiologists. In 1999, the Radiologists formed Intermountain Medical Imaging, LLC, (“IMI”), and a month later opened their facility. In 1998, Saint Alphonsus began negotiating with the Radiologists to partner with them in the imaging center. In 2001, Saint Alphonsus became a member of IMI. In 2002, IMI opened another facility in Meridian. In 2004, Saint Alphonsus gave notice to MRI Associates that it would dissociate from the partnership effective on April 1, 2004. Under the partnership agreement, Saint Alphonsus could not compete with MRI Associates for a period of one year. Saint Alphonsus then filed suit seeking to recover the value of its partnership interest from MRI Associates, and MRI Associates responded by filing a multi-count counterclaim and claims against third parties. The third-party claims were ultimately dismissed. The jury found Saint Alphonsus liable on all causes of action, and MRI Associates was awarded a judgment in the sum of $36.3 million. That judgment was vacated on appeal, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The case was again tried to a jury. The district court submitted four claims for relief to the jury: breach of contract, intentional interference with a prospective economic advantage, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy. The jury found in favor of the MRI Entities on each of the claims. Saint Alphonsus appealed, and the MRI Entities cross-appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "St. Alphonsus Diversified Care, Inc. v. MRI Associates, LLP" on Justia Law