Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case arose from a dispute regarding the sewer system serving Sunnyside Industrial Park, LLC. Sunnyside Park Utilities (SPU) provides water and sewer services to the industrial park and Doyle Beck and Kirk Woolf are, respectively, the Secretary and President of SPU. Printcraft Press, Inc. (Printcraft) is a printing business that occupies a building in the industrial park. In 2004, Printcraft entered a ten-year lease for property in the industrial park. The dispute in this case centered on the failure of Beck, Woolf, and SPU to disclose limitations on the sewage system, including the amount of sewage the system could handle and its lack of suitability to dispose of some chemicals used in the printing business. After Printcraft started using the sewage system, SPU disconnected Printcraft from the system in December 2006. Printcraft sued SPU, Beck, and Woolf (collectively, defendants) for breach of contract, fraudulent nondisclosure, and fraud. At trial, the jury found that the defendants owed Printcraft a duty to disclose the limitations of the system and failed to do so. The trial court denied the defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and entered judgment in favor of Printcraft. Defendants timely appealed and Printcraft cross-appealed. However, in 2009, SPU filed a renewed motion for relief from judgment under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), asserting newly discovered evidence regarding whether Printcraft's damages claim was affected by its subsequent connection to the Idaho Falls city sewer system. The district court found that the newly discovered evidence satisfied the requirements of I.R.C.P. 60(b) and granted a new trial on the issue of damages. On appeal, the defendants argued that they had no duty to disclose, that any failure to disclose did not lead Printcraft to believe any fact that was false, that the refusal to give SPU's requested jury instructions was improper, and that the district court erred in denying their motion for JNOV because there was not sufficient evidence to support the jury's determination of damages. In turn, Printcraft's cross-appeal argued that the district court erred in limiting the potential bases for defendants' duty to disclose, that Printcraft's breach of contract claim was improperly dismissed, that the subsequent Rule 60(b) motion was improperly granted, that the issue of punitive damages should have been submitted to the jury, and that the judge erred in denying Printcraft's request for attorney fees. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's grant of SPU's motion under 60(b)(2). The Court affirmed the denial of defendants' motion for JNOV as to the existence and breach of a duty to disclose and as to the amount of damages. The Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the jury instructions. And the Court affirmed the district court's decision to deny Printcraft's request to put the question of punitive damages to the jury. View "Printcraft Press, Inc. v. Sunnyside Park Utilities, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant Hector Almaraz appealed his conviction for first-degree murder based on several evidentiary grounds, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by admitting impermissible character evidence that gang members commit crimes and other violent acts and by admitting improper testimony from a police officer and an expert witness interpreting the security video from the scene of the crime. Defendant also argued that the district court erred in failing to suppress an eyewitness identification due to suggestive procedures, and by precluding an expert from opining to the suggestiveness of a specific eyewitness’ identification. Furthermore, Defendant asserted that the cumulative effect of the errors deprived him of a fair trial, warranting the Supreme Court to remand his case to district court for a new trial. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court held that the district court erred in failing to suppress the identification of Defendant as the shooter, and abused its discretion by limiting a defense expert from testifying about the suggestiveness of the specific procedures employed by the police during the eyewitness' interview with police. Nevertheless, the Court found those two errors to be harmless. There was no other abuse of discretion committed by the district court on the remaining evidentiary issues raised by Defendant on appeal and that Court held that his Motion for a New Trial was properly denied. Thus, the Court upheld Defendant's conviction. View "Idaho v. Almaraz, Jr." on Justia Law

This appeal involved a negligence claim arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Appellant Joseph Gerdon was a passenger in an automobile, traveling with Respondent Joshua Rydalch when the vehicle veered off the road and went down an embankment. At the time of the accident, both Gerdon and Rydalch were employees of Con Paulos Chevrolet, Inc., and were transporting a vehicle for their employer. Gerdon and Rydalch were injured during the accident, and both parties received workers' compensation benefits for a work-related injury. Gerdon also filed a Complaint against Rydalch for negligent driving. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Rydalch, finding that both Gerdon and Rydalch were acting in the course and scope of their employment during the accident. As a result, the district court held that Gerdon's claim of negligence was barred by the exclusive remedy rule under Idaho’s Workers' Compensation statutes. Gerdon appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the district court erred in holding that Rydalch was acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident, and that the court abused its discretion by striking a portion of Gerdon's affidavit. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Rydalch because the Court found he was acting in the course of employment when the accident occurred, and therefore, Gerdon's claim of negligence was indeed barred by the exclusive remedy rule. Furthermore, the Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking a portion of Gerdon's affidavit. View "Gerdon v. Rydalch" on Justia Law

This appeal involed a medical malpractice claim brought against a chiropractor for negligently causing a patient to suffer a stroke after treatment. In 2007, Appellant Martha Arregui sought treatment for her neck and back pain from Respondent Dr. Rosalinda Gallegos-Main. Arregui originally alleged that Dr. Gallegos-Main owed her a duty to treat her in a medically competent manner under Idaho's Medical Malpractice Act, and failed to do so when Arregui was diagnosed several weeks later as having suffered a stroke after a neck manipulation by Dr. Gallegos-Main. Arregui filed suit against the chiropractor and the facility, Full Life Chiropractic, in 2009. Dr. Gallegos-Main deposed Arregui's expert witness and discovered that she had no knowledge of the local standard of care. Consequently, Dr. Gallegos-Main moved for summary judgment, arguing that Arregui failed to meet the requirements for establishing a claim for medical malpractice which requires expert testimony regarding the local standard of care. Three days after the deadline, Arregui filed her Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and included an affidavit from her expert with a sworn statement that she consulted a local chiropractor and was now familiar with the local standard of care. Dr. Gallegos-Main filed a Motion to Strike the affidavit as untimely and as a sham affidavit. Arregui unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration, arguing the court erred in striking her expert's affidavit and presented a new argument in the alternative that the court improperly granted summary judgment because the Medical Malpractice Act did not apply to chiropractors. The district court entered a final order denying the motion. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Arregui v. Gallegos-Main" on Justia Law

John Doe (Father) is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States illegally in 2003. In mid-2007, he married Jane Doe (Mother) in Payette, Idaho. After they were married, Father was arrested in Ontario, Oregon, when he attempted to open a bank account with a false social security number. He served three months in jail, and was then transferred to a jail in Portland to be held for deportation. He agreed to voluntarily leave the United States and did so, returning to his parents’ home in Salamanca, Guanajuato, Mexico. Mother also went to Mexico, but she returned to the United States after she became pregnant. Their child (Daughter) was born in the United States in November 2008. Mother also had a four-year-old son by another man. In March 2009, Father reentered the United States illegally in an attempt to be with his wife and Daughter, but he was caught in Arizona and returned to Mexico. In March, 2009, Mother was living in Middleton, Idaho, with her boyfriend, who had a son who was about seven years old. Mother and her boyfriend took his son to the hospital regarding severe bruising on his head. Because Mother and her boyfriend gave conflicting accounts of how the boy was injured, the medical personnel notified law enforcement. The investigation disclosed Mother’s son had struck her boyfriend’s son several times with a hairbrush. Daughter and the boyfriend’s son were taken into custody by law enforcement, and on the same day the county prosecuting attorney filed a petition under the Child Protective Act with respect to those children. The petition alleged that the name of Daughter’s father was unknown and that he was in Mexico at an unknown address. Father spoke by telephone from Mexico with the Department’s caseworker that he would like to be involved in Daughter’s life and to be reunited with Mother and her son. He also said he would like Mother to begin the process that would allow him to come into the United States lawfully. In August, the Department’s caseworker told Father she would present a home study to the court if it was received in time. On September 15, 2010, the Mexican consulate emailed the report to the caseworker. The termination hearing was held on September 29. At that hearing, the Department did not present the study to the court. The caseworker testified that she disregarded the report because the Department had decided to terminate Father’s parental rights. Thus, default was entered against Father, even though he had clearly not been properly served with process regarding the termination proceedings. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the magistrate court and remanded this case with instructions for the court to order the Department to take all reasonable steps to promptly place Daughter with Father in Mexico. View "RE: Termination of Parental Rights of John (2011-23) Doe" on Justia Law

At issue in this divorce proceeding was a magistrate court's decision that found it was in the best interest of Appellant Tracy Jo and Respondent Charles Clair, Jr.'s child to reside primarily in Pocatello. The custody plan contained alternative options depending on whether and when Tracy relocated back to the Pocatello area after moving to Ely, Nevada following the parties' separation. Additionally, the Supreme Court addressed an issue concerning the introduction of the custody evaluator's opinions regarding an acceptable custody arrangement. After review of the facts in record, the Supreme Court affirmed the magistrate court's decision. View "Clair v. Clair" on Justia Law

HJ Grathol is a California general partnership that owed real estate in Idaho. Grathol purchased a parcel for development. The Idaho Transportation board later sought to condemn sixteen acres of the parcel in order to realign US Highway 95 and to construct an interchange with State Highway 54. Grathol contended that the Board failed to negotiate for the sixteen acres in good faith because the Board's offer did not account for the extension of two roads which were believed to have significantly increased the property's value. Grathol also asserted that the Board failed to file its complaint and order of condemnation in accordance with Idaho law before moving for early possession of the property pursuant to a "quick take" provision. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Board indeed did negotiate in good faith for the subject property, and filed its complaint and order of condemnation in accordance with the applicable statute. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision that the "quick take" provision in question was satisfied. View "Idaho Transportation Board V. HJ Grathol" on Justia Law

Petitioner Tanner Mickelsen appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondent Broadway Ford, Inc. on his complaint that alleged fraud in the inducement. Petitioner asked for a rescission of the contract between the parties based on that alleged fraud or alternatively on mutual mistake. Petitioner leased a truck from Broadway Ford. The truck had over 1400 miles on it, but was sold as new and under factory warranty. The truck had been modified with a six-inch suspension lift and four oversized tires. Though he purchased the truck in Idaho Falls, Petitioner resided in Moses Lake, and took the truck to his local dealership for repairs. In the first year of the lease, Discovery Ford made several repairs to the vehicle under the warranty. But when Petitioner took the truck back to Discovery Ford for "handling problems," the service manager advised Petitioner that these repairs would not be covered by the warranty because of the lift modifications made to the truck's suspension. Broadway Ford told Petitioner that they would try to resolve the issue if Petitioner drove or shipped the truck to Idaho Falls. Petitioner did not take the truck back to Idaho Falls or ship it there. He eventually stopped making lease payments and voluntarily surrendered the truck to the bank who provided the financing. Finding that the district court made no error in granting summary judgment in favor of Broadway Ford, the Court affirmed that court's decision. View "Mickelsen v. Broadway Ford, Inc." on Justia Law

This appeal arose from Gaylen Clayson's attempt to purchase a restaurant and cheese factory in Thayne, Wyoming. Prior to making a formal offer on the property, Clayson was granted access to the property in order to begin operating the restaurant and refurbishing the factory. His effort to purchase the subject property ultimately failed, and Don Zebe and Rick Lawson subsequently purchased the property. Clayson then filed a breach of contract action against Zebe and Lawson, alleging the existence of both express and implied contracts entitling Clayson to compensation for the pre-purchase work Clayson had performed on the property. The district court partially granted Zebe and Lawson's motion for summary judgment, holding that there was no express contract between the parties. After a bench trial, the district court determined that the parties' conduct created both implied-in-fact and implied-in-law contracts, which required Zebe to reimburse Clayson for costs he incurred while working on the subject property. Zebe appealed, arguing that the district court erred because Zebe neither requested Clayson's performance nor received any benefit as a result of Clayson's work on the property. Zebe asked the Supreme Court to vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the matter for entry of judgment in their favor. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that assignment was silent as to consideration. It did not address whether Clayson was to be reimbursed for the expenses he had previously incurred or whether the assignment was a gratuitous act by Clayson. Therefore, the Court held that the district court did not err in finding an implied-in-fact contract. View "Clayson v. Zebe" on Justia Law

Security Financial Fund, LLC, ("Security Financial") extended to Byron and Marilynn Thomason ("the Thomasons") a series of loans evidenced by five promissory notes, which were secured by three deeds of trust and two mortgages on real property. As a result of the Thomasons' non-payment on two prornissory notes secured by the mortgages, Security Financial foreclosed on those notes. While the foreclosure was still pending, the Thomasons filed a separate action against Security Financial and others, addressing all the promissory notes executed in favor of Security Financial by the Thomasons. That action sought recovery for breach of contract and fraud, among other theories. Both actions were consolidated. On appeal from the district court's decision to grant Security Financial's Motion for Summary Judgment with regard to the claims that the Thomasons asserted in their fraud case, the Thomasons contended, among other things, that the district court lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction to foreclose on the secured property and abused its discretion. The Supreme Court concluded that all of the Thomasons' claims were waived or frivolous, and accordingly affirmed the Final Judgment in favor of Security Financial. View "Security Financial Fund v. Thomason" on Justia Law