Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This appeal was the second time before the Idaho Supreme Court. It involved the existence of a prescriptive easement and the presumption of permissive use. Shelley and Roger Cook owned a parcel of land which was originally owned by Shelley’s grandfather, John Harker Sr. The property stayed in the Harker family ever since. The Cooks filed suit against Jay and Shelli Van Orden alleging they had a prescriptive easement across the Van Ordens’ land (the “Van Orden Property”) via a road the parties call “Tower Road.” Tower Road connected the Cooks’ property to a county road and had been used by the Cooks and their predecessors in interest since the Cook Property was homesteaded in 1908. The district court initially entered judgment in favor of the Van Ordens after it determined the Cooks had failed to prove the necessary element of adverse use for a prescriptive easement. The Cooks appealed, and the Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision, finding it was necessary for the district court to determine the statutory period of adverse use because “there were potentially periods of adverse use” that could satisfy “either the five-year or twenty-year period for establishing a prescriptive easement. On remand, the district court determined that the use of Tower Road by the Harkers was presumptively permissive prior to 1910 and that “nothing in the evidence [implies] that Harkers’ or Cooks’ permissive use of Tower Road . . . ever changed into an adverse use.” Nevertheless, the district court identified a statutory period from 1962 to 2006, and granted the Cooks’ prescriptive easement claim by concluding the period of statutory use was sufficiently adverse due to the common belief of the Harkers/Cooks and the Thompsons—the Van Ordens’ predecessors in interest—that the Harkers/Cooks had a right to use Tower Road. The Van Ordens appealed to the Supreme Court, contending the district court erred in granting the Cooks a prescriptive easement. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that the record supported the district court's conclusion that the Harkers’/Cooks’ permissive use of Tower Road never changed into an adverse use, and the district court erred in granting the Cooks a prescriptive easement. View "Cook v. Van Orden" on Justia Law

While a passenger during an unrelated traffic stop, defendant-appellant Audrey Monroe was recognized by a Bingham County Sheriff’s deputy as having an outstanding warrant. Pursuant to the warrant, the deputy attempted to take her into custody. In the course of the arrest, Monroe refused to release her phone, which was secured on her finger by a phone ring holder. As Monroe’s resistance escalated, she fell to the ground and began violently kicking, making contact with the officer. Ultimately, she was secured in the police cruiser. The incident was captured on video by the arresting officer’s body camera. For her conduct during the arrest, Monroe was charged with felony battery on a police officer. During trial, Monroe asked the district court for jury instructions regarding two misdemeanor offenses, asserting that they were lesser included offenses of the crime charged. The district court declined to give either instruction. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Monroe guilty of the felony charge. On appeal, Monroe argued the district court erred in failing to give the requested lesser included jury instructions. Finding no reversible error, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. View "Idaho v. Monroe" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Kiki Leslie Tidwell (“Tidwell”) and the Madison Jean Tidwell Trust opposed an affordable housing project on land dedicated to Blaine County, Idaho for public use. Plaintiffs contended the Final Plat contemplated the land be held for open space and recreational use, but Blaine County contracted with ARCH Community Housing Trust (“ARCH”) and Blaine County Housing Authority (“BCHA”) to donate a parcel ("Parcel C") to BCHA to construct community housing. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the County, ARCH, and BCHA (collectively “the County”) seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages to Tidwell under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court ultimately dismissed Tidwell’s section 1983 claim, but the district court allowed Plaintiffs to pursue the remaining claims, despite the County’s contention that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the complaint. Following a series of unsuccessful dispositive motions seeking summary and partial summary judgment on both sides, the case proceeded to court trial, where Plaintiffs prevailed on both claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied Tidwell’s request for attorney fees. The County appealed, and Tidwell cross-appealed the dismissal of her section 1983 claim and both Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s denial of attorney fees. On appeal, the County again raised its standing argument, contending Plaintiffs had no particularized interest in the parcel and suffered no particularized injury. If Plaintiffs had standing, the County claimed the district court erred by concluding the Final Plat was ambiguous and by permitting extrinsic evidence, including testimony of what the parties intended to construct on the parcel when the land was transferred. The Plaintiffs cross-appealed, with Tidwell alleging the district court erred in dismissing her procedural and substantive due process claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Both Plaintiffs also contended the district court abused its discretion in denying their claim for attorney fees. The Idaho Supreme Court vacated the district court's judgment because Plaintiffs lacked standing to assert their claims. Costs, but not attorney fees, were awarded on appeal to the County. View "Tidwell, et al. v. Blaine County, et al." on Justia Law

Kyle and Ashley Fickenwirth and Amy Lanning (“Lanning”) owned adjoining properties at the center of this dispute. The Fickenwirths owned a gravel driveway that ran along the backside of Lanning’s property. Lanning had previously maintained a decorative split-rail fence on her property. Until recently, there was a relatively small strip of grassy land between the Fickenwirths’ driveway and the split-rail fence in Lanning’s backyard. This dispute arose when Lanning removed the split-rail fence and erected a new fence running directly along the western side of the Fickenwirths’ driveway that more closely adhered to the boundaries described in the deed. The Fickenwirths brought suit to quiet title to the strip of land between the split-rail fence on Lanning’s property and their driveway based on the theories of adverse possession or, alternatively, boundary by agreement. The district court concluded that the Fickenwirths had failed to prove their claims regarding adverse possession and boundary by agreement at the location of the split-rail fence. However, the district court found that the Fickenwirths had proved a claim of boundary by agreement at the location of the new fence, near the side of the driveway, but leaving a small strip of grass between the driveway and the fence. Lanning appealed this determination, claiming there was never an agreement that the boundary line was at the location of the new fence. After review and finding no reversible error, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Fickenwirth v. Lanning" on Justia Law

While on patrol, Deputy Sheriff Brock Katseanes discovered an unattended car parked in the parking lot of a public boat launch. The car was unlocked, and its trunk and front windows were open. Katseanes learned the car was registered to April Ramos. Katseanes was eventually joined by five additional officers and a canine to search the surrounding area for Ramos, but they were unsuccessful in locating her. Due to his previous encounters with Ramos, Katseanes believed the car likely contained illegal drugs. The canine conducted a drug sniff; the dog did not alert during its sniff of the car’s exterior. The officers subsequently impounded the car and then conducted an inventory search of it prior to having the car towed. During the inventory search, the officers found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Ramos was charged with possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. She moved to suppress all evidence found during the inventory search of the car. The district court denied her motion. Ramos conditionally pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance but retained her right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress. As a result of the plea agreement, the State dismissed the possession of drug paraphernalia charge. Ramos timely appealed, and the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment. "Absent clear instruction from the United States Supreme Court, we decline to expand Opperman’s 'community caretaking' rationale to include potential theft or property damage to the vehicle as an acceptable reason to impound a vehicle. ... an officer’s concern that the car will be subject to theft or property damage if it is not impounded—no matter how well-founded the concern may be—is irrelevant to the analysis as to whether the decision to impound the car is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment." The case was remanded to the district court to determine whether the decision to impound Ramos’s car passed constitutional muster. View "Idaho v. Ramos" on Justia Law

The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare’s (“the Department”) cited Grace at Fairview Lakes, LLC (“Grace”), a residential assisted living and memory care facility, for failing to provide a safe living environment for residents and for inadequate training in relation to COVID-19 infection control measures. Grace requested administrative review of the enforcement action, which was affirmed by a Department administrator. Grace then filed an administrative appeal challenging the action, which was affirmed by a hearing officer. Grace then filed a petition for judicial review to the district court. The district court denied all the relief sought by Grace. On appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court, Grace argued the district court erred because the hearing officer’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. The Supreme Court found no error in the district court’s decision because there was substantial evidence in the record to support the hearing officer’s order. View "Grace at Fairview Lakes, LLC v. IDHW" on Justia Law

Edo, a dog used by the Boise Police Department to detect controlled substances, alerted on defendant-respondent Shawna Pendleton’s vehicle during a traffic stop. Videos of the incident raised questions about the reliability of Edo’s performance. Through a series of discovery requests, Pendleton sought additional videos and police reports from past stops to challenge Edo’s reliability in detecting drugs. The district court, over repeated objections from the State, ultimately granted her motion to compel the evidence on finding it material to her defense. On appeal, the State argued the district court abused its discretion by denying its motion for reconsideration because: (1) Pendleton failed to establish that the requested evidence was material to her defense; (2) the production of four-months’ worth of Edo’s reports and videos was unduly burdensome, and (3) not all of the requested evidence was within the prosecutor’s possession, custody, or control. The Idaho Supreme Court concluded the State failed to show an abuse of discretion in compelling production of the videos and reports regarding Edo and his handler for the four months prior to Pendleton’s arrest. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s determination that the evidence sought by Pendleton was material, not unduly burdensome, and in the “possession, custody or control” of the prosecution pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 16. View "Idaho v. Pendleton" on Justia Law

Between 2015 and 2019, BitterSweet Ranch and its managers (“BitterSweet”) leased three parcels of farmland from Frank Sullivan and two of his business entities, The Green Desert, LLC, and The Sullivan Limited Partnership (collectively, “Sullivan”). The parties signed three identical five-year leases (“the Leases”) involving three separate parcels of real property, each owned by one of the three Sullivan parties. The Leases specified that Sullivan was to be responsible for payment of the property taxes, but that those parties were to be reimbursed by BitterSweet, and that BitterSweet was to be responsible for bi-annual rent payments, utilities, and water assessments. For a variety of reasons, the parties purportedly orally agreed to modify the Leases to offset amounts owed to each other throughout the terms of the Leases. Shortly before the Leases were set to expire at the end of their five-year terms, Sullivan claimed that BitterSweet was in breach of the Leases for its alleged failure to make timely rent payments, to pay all property taxes, and to pay the water assessments pursuant to the terms of the Leases. Sullivan then filed three lawsuits (one for each of the Leases and in the names of each of the three parties) in district court. The district court ordered the cases consolidated and then granted summary judgment in favor of BitterSweet, concluding that a genuine issue of material fact had not been created as to whether BitterSweet had breached the Leases. Sullivan appealed the adverse order. Finding no reversible error, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. View "Sullivan v. BitterSweet Ranch, LLC" on Justia Law

This appeal was about whether an aggrieved applicant could bring a direct action against a city, its administrators, and its mayor for alleged misconduct pertaining to the granting of a conditional use permit without first exhausting administrative remedies and seeking judicial review. The answer is almost always “no,” but based on the unique facts in this case the Idaho Supreme Court held that the applicant was excused from exhausting administrative remedies. View "Bracken v. City of Ketchum" on Justia Law

Mitchell Smith was employed by Amalgamated Sugar Company (“Amalgamated”) in Nampa, Idaho, when he was injured falling from a flight of stairs after the handrail gave out. Amalgamated had contracted with Excel Fabrication, LLC (“Excel”), to construct and install the flight of stairs and the handrail. Smith received worker’s compensation benefits from Amalgamated. Smith then sued Excel as a third-party tortfeasor, alleging that Excel had been negligent in its construction and installation of the staircase. Excel moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was a “statutory co-employee” with Smith and, therefore, it was immune from liability as a result of the exclusive remedy rule. The district court agreed and granted Excel’s motion for summary judgment. The district court then dismissed the case, with prejudice. Smith appealed. Based on the district court’s failure to recognize the differences between an independent contractor from either a contractor or a subcontractor, the Idaho Supreme Court held that the district court erred in granting Excel’s motion for summary judgment: the text of the Worker’s Compensation Law indicated that “independent contractors” were fundamentally different from “contractors and subcontractors” as those terms were used throughout the Idaho Worker’s Compensation Act. Because of this fundamental difference, an independent contractor was not immune from third-party tort liability as a statutory employer. The judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Smith v. Excel Fabrication, LLC" on Justia Law