Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Ora Carson was convicted of the murder of his three-month-old son and was sentenced to a fixed life sentence based upon the jury’s finding that he exhibited utter disregard for human life. On appeal, he challenged the trial court’s ruling barring impeachment evidence of the child’s mother, statements made by the prosecuting attorney during closing argument, and the jury instruction defining “utter disregard.” Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Defendant’s trial counsel did not object to the challenged comments: "[b]y the challenged comments, the prosecutor was not expressing a personal opinion regarding the credibility of Mother. Defendant had testified that Mother killed Baby. The prosecutor was merely arguing that Mother’s conduct, as shown by the evidence, was inconsistent with that allegation. The prosecutor and defense counsel are free to argue the evidence and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from that evidence, even if the evidence argued indicates that a witness is or is not truthful." With regard to the jury instructions given by the trial court, the Supreme Court concluded that Defendant did not present "any logical argument" that the jury would not have understood the meaning of "utter disregard." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Idaho v. Carson" on Justia Law

Petitioner Shanna Locker appealed the Industrial Commission’s (Commission) finding that she was insubordinate when she failed to provide a medical release at the request of her employer, Logan’s Foodtown. The Commission found that this constituted employment-related misconduct which rendered Petitioner ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits. Upon review of the record before the Commission, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's decision. View "Locker v. How Soel, Inc " on Justia Law

Petitioner Virginia Beaudoin appealed a district court's dismissal of her motion for summary judgment on a breach of fiduciary duty claim against Defendant Davidson Trust Company. The claim stemmed from Davidson Trust’s mistaken distribution of trust funds to Beaudoin when Beaudoin’s two children were, in fact, the designated beneficiaries. Because the Supreme Court found that Davidson Trust owed Petitioner no fiduciary duty at the time of the alleged breach, the Court affirmed the district court's decision dismissing Petitioner's claim. View "Beaudoin v. Davidson Trust Co. " on Justia Law

The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court was the grant of summary judgment against Landscapes Unlimited, LLC (LU) in which the district court: (1) applied I.C. 45-508 to postpone LU’s lien claim in golf course property to Hopkins Northwest Fund, LLC’s (Hopkins) deed of trust covering the same, and (2) alternatively apportioned LU’s lien amount. Hopkins filed a complaint in district court seeking to foreclose on its deeds of trust because the borrowers were in default on both promissory notes. Hopkins alleged in the complaint that its interest in the subject properties had priority over LU’s lien claim. LU cross-claimed, alleging that its lien claim was superior to Hopkins’ deeds of trust because LU began work on the project in June 2006 and Hopkins did not record its first deed of trust until August. Accordingly, LU sought to foreclose its lien with respect to the parcels identified in its lien claim. LU filed a motion for summary judgment in December 2008 regarding the validity, superiority, and amount of its lien claim. Hopkins responded that LU’s lien, even if valid, did not have priority over Hopkins’ interest because LU failed to designate what portions of its lien amount are attributed to each parcel or improvement pursuant to I.C. 45-508. LU countered that a single lien claim could be filed, without segregating the amount, when the labor is provided pursuant to a single contract and the work provided amounts to a single improvement. The district court orally ruled that LU’s lien claim on the four parcels at issue was superior to Hopkins’ interest pursuant to I.C. 45-506. Because the Supreme Court found that I.C. 45-508 was inapplicable to LU’s lien claim and that equitable apportionment was not an appropriate alternative remedy where I.C. 45-508 does not apply, the Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hopkins Northwest Fund, LLC v. Landscapes Unlimited, LLC " on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this appeal was the City of Lewiston's rejection of a bid for a public works project on the grounds that the lowest bidder lacked sufficient experience for the project. In 2009, the City of Lewiston (City) advertised for bids to replace the irrigation system at the City golf course. Hillside Landscape Construction, Inc. (Hillside) desired to bid on the project, but prior to doing so it sent a letter to City stating that if City insisted upon having qualifications other than a current Idaho public works license to bid on the project, the City must follow the Category B procedures set forth in the Idaho Code and pre-qualify the bidders. Hillside asked that the qualification of prior experience be removed. City’s attorney denied the request, stating that City’s specifications and bidding process complied with state law. Hillside and four others submitted bids for the project. City notified the bidders that Hillside Landscape Construction submitted the lowest bid but that the company lacked the required experience specified within the bid documents. City awarded the contract to Landscapes Unlimited, the next lowest bidder. Hillside filed a complaint seeking injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and damages. The district court held that City complied with the bidding statutes, vacated a temporary restraining order, denied the motion for an injunction then dismissed Hillside’s complaint. In its review, the Supreme Court found that because the City chose to follow the "Category A" procedures set forth in the Idaho Code rather than the Category B procedures, the district court erred in holding that City could reject the bid on that ground. The Court therefore vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hillside Landscape Construction, Inc. v. City of Lewiston " on Justia Law

Claimant David Tarbet worked for Employer J.R. Simplot Company for thirty-six years until an accident in 2007 left him totally and permanently disabled. The issue before the Industrial Commission (Commission) was whether Employer was liable for all or only a part of Claimant’s income benefits. If Claimant’s total disability resulted solely from the last accident, Employer would be liable for all of the income benefits. If his total disability resulted from the combined effects of both that injury and impairments that pre-existed that injury, then Employer was liable only for that portion of the income benefits for the disability caused by the accident, and the Industrial Special Indemnity Fund (ISIF) would be liable for the remainder. The Industrial Commission found that the April 2007 accident was Claimant’s final industrial accident, that he was totally and permanently disabled as a result of the final accident, and that the impairments that existed prior to that accident did not contribute to his total disability. It found that ISIF was not liable for Claimant’s benefits and dismissed the complaint against it. Employer then appealed. Upon review of the Commission's record, the Supreme Court affirmed the Industrial Commission's order. View "Tarbet v. J.R. Simplot Co. " on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a petition for judicial review of the Camas County Board of Commissioners' (Board) decision to approve a preliminary subdivision plat. The district court held that the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law did not amount to a "reasoned statement" as required by I.C. 67-6535, and that the lack of a reasoned statement violated the petitioners' substantial right to due process. The district court also held that the Board erroneously interpreted a number of Camas County Ordinances. The district court awarded attorney fees to petitioners. The Board timely appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order vacating the Board's findings and conclusions but reversed the district court’s award of attorney fees. View "Jasso v. Camas County" on Justia Law

This case involved a custody dispute between Charles Hernandez, the biological father of two minor children, and Janice Ausburn, the children's maternal grandmother. In 2001, the children's mother Kerri left the children with her mother Janice because she was struggling with drug addiction. The children continued to live with Janice and she raised them without physical help from Charles or Kerri. Charles had no physical contact with the children between November 2002 and early 2008. Kerri continued to struggle with personal issues and had nothing to do with the children after turning them over to Janice. Despite acting as the children's primary custodian, Janice never petitioned a court for guardianship. In 2008, Charles and Kerri stipulated to a change in the custody arrangement, whereby Charles would have sole physical custody of the children and Kerri would have visitation each summer. The court entered a modification order based on the stipulation. The court was unaware that the children were actually residing with Janice when it entered the order. Janice was not made aware of either the stipulation or the order. Janice found out about the plan and kept the boys home from school on the day Charles was to take them. Janice then filed a separate action for custody. In the subsequent proceeding, the court considered whether Charles or Janice should be the children's primary custodian. The court ultimately granted Charles sole legal custody and Charles and Janice shared physical custody, with Charles having primary custody and Janice having custody for six weeks during the summers. The court based its decision largely on a court-ordered assessment prepared by a third-party evaluator. Charles appealed the magistrate court's decision to the district court. He did not challenge the magistrate judge's factual findings but, rather, argued the award of limited custodial rights to Janice violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Upon review of the trial court record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order. View "Hernandez v. Ausburn " on Justia Law

In 2002, Defendant David Egan, a business manager for Defendant Foxhollow Construction and Trucking, Inc. (Foxhollow), met with Wayne Johnson of Defendant L.N. Johnson Paving, LLC (Johnson) to discuss a bid for excavation and paving work for a new public high school. Foxhollow wanted to bid on the project but lacked the requisite public works license. Johnson thought its license could cover Foxhollow if the two companies submitted a bid in Johnson's name. Egan submitted a subcontract bid in Johnson’s name to Plaintiff Harris, the general contractor for the school project, and was the successful bidder. Over the course of the business relationship, a contract dispute arose. Harris brought this action, alleging that (1) Foxhollow, Johnson, and another subcontractor breached their subcontracts with Harris. Egan filed a counterclaim for indemnification from Harris. The district court dismissed Foxhollow as a party for lack of proof of notice because there was no indication that Foxhollow was ever served. After a bench trial, the court granted Harris’ motion for "directed verdict" as to Egan’s counterclaim. The court concluded however that Harris failed to prove any of its remaining claims against any of the defendants and therefore was not entitled to relief. The court also awarded fees and costs to Johnson. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Harris argued that the district court: (1) erred in concluding Harris failed to prove contract damages; (2) erred in concluding that no defendant was unjustly enriched; (3) erred in concluding that no defendant is liable for fraud; (4) erred in concluding that Harris was not entitled to indemnity; (5) abused its discretion in denying Harris’ motion to amend findings and conclusion; (6) abused its discretion in granting fees and costs to Johnson; and (7) abused its discretion in denying Harris’ motion for a new trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment except for its attorney fee awards, which were vacated. View "Harris, Inc. v. Foxhollow Construction & Trucking, Inc. " on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jon Wakelum and Mike Ressler attended an auction of three parcels of property owned by Defendant Thomas Hagood that was conducted by Bullock and Company Realtors (Bullock). The auction was advertised as an absolute auction with a variety of terms and conditions for bidders. Wakelum and Ressler offered the high bids for the three parcels, all totaling less than $1 million. When Hagood was approached with the purchase and sale agreements, he refused to sign them. He claimed he had no intention to sell the properties for less than $2 million. Wakelum and Ressler brought suit against Hagood, arguing that the auction sale was enforceable. They later amended the complaint to include a claim that Hagood violated the Idaho Consumer Protection Act (ICPA) and attempted to further amend the complaint to seek a declaratory judgment that Bullock, as agent for Hagood, had authority to sign the purchase agreements. The district court granted Hagood’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Wakelum’s and Ressler’s claims. The district court denied Wakelum’s and Ressler’s second motion to amend their complaint, finding that even if their claims were proven, they would not have been entitled to relief. Wakelum and Ressler appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's holding that the Bullock's Representation Agreement (that listed the terms and conditions with bidders) with Hagood was unenforceable for failing to comply with the statute of frauds. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Wakelum v. Hagood " on Justia Law