Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Idaho Power Company and Avista Corporation (collectively the “Companies”) contested the the Idaho State Tax Commission (the “Commission”), in its capacity as the State Board of Equalization, assessments of their operating property during 2019 and 2020, asserting that those assessments violated the proportionality and uniformity requirements set out in Article VII, sections 2 and 5 of the Idaho Constitution. The Commission rejected the Companies’ challenges and upheld its assessments. The Companies then sought judicial review of the Commission’s decision in district court, arguing that the Commission had erred in two significant ways: (1) because the Commission reduced the assessed values of certain railroads’ operating property in compliance with federal law, the assessed values of the Companies’ operating property were unconstitutionally assessed at a higher percentage of their actual cash value than were the railroads’ operating properties (the "4-R" claim); and (2) that commercial property had been assessed (and therefore taxed) at a lower percentage of its actual cash value than the Companies’ operating property, rendering the Companies’ operating property unconstitutionally disproportionally over-taxed (the "alternative claim"). The district court granted summary judgment to the Commission as to the Companies’ first argument. However, the district court concluded genuine issues of material fact existed as to the Companies’ second argument and declined to grant the Commission’s request for summary judgment. Both parties appealed. The Idaho Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in dismissing the 4-R claim, but did not err as to the alternative claim. Judgment was reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Idaho Power Company v. Idaho State Tax Commission" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned a district court’s award of attorney fees to Burns Concrete, Inc., and Burns Holdings, LLC (collectively “Burns”). After extensive litigation, Burns prevailed on the merits of its claims and judgment was entered against Teton County, Idaho. The district court awarded Burns attorney fees pursuant to the parties’ development agreement. Both Burns and Teton County appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion in awarding the fees. Burns argued the district court should have awarded more fees, while Teton County argued it should have denied the fees or awarded less fees. Finding no reversible error in the district court's award, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. View "Burns Concrete, Inc. v. Teton County" on Justia Law

In 2018, Terri Richardson Mattson (“Mattson”) and her husband filed this action against the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, and its employee, Laurie Gallegos, a certified physician assistant (“Defendants”), alleging medical malpractice and failure to obtain informed consent related to outpatient mental health services Mattson received from Defendants. As a part of those services, Gallegos prescribed Mattson Prozac (fluoxetine), an antidepressant. Roughly one month later, the day of her follow up appointment with Gallegos, Mattson woke up, took a firearm from her gun cabinet, went to the liquor store, bought a bottle of vodka, drank the entire bottle while driving to her follow up appointment, and when she arrived in the Department’s parking lot, fired the gun into her head. Mattson survived but suffered extensive injuries. Subsequently, Mattson and her husband filed this action. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on two grounds: (1) Defendants were immune from liability under the Idaho Tort Claims Act (“ITCA”) because Mattson’s claims arose out of injuries sustained while she was receiving services from a “mental health center”; and (2) the “reckless, willful and wanton conduct” exception to immunity did not apply as a matter of law. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision that Mattson’s and her husband’s claims fell within the purview of the “mental health center, hospital or similar facility” immunity provision in Idaho Code section 6-904A(2). However, the Court reversed the district court’s decision that there was no triable jury question under the “reckless, willful and wanton conduct” exception to immunity. The Supreme Court found Mattson alleged sufficient facts at summary judgment to demonstrate that a reasonable person could find that Defendants’ acts or omissions were “reckless, willful and wanton[.]” Thus, the Court vacated the judgment and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Mattson v. IDHW" on Justia Law

Defendant Stacy Ingraham appealed her convictions and sentences for possession of methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, destruction of evidence, and grand theft by possession of stolen property. She argued she was denied her right to a public trial under both the Idaho and U.S. constitutions, and that the district court erred by publishing a video exhibit to the jury after it began deliberations. Additionally, she contended the district court erred in allowing the jury to consider a prior felony conviction for purposes of a persistent violator enhancement where that conviction had previously been “deemed” a misdemeanor pursuant to Idaho Code section 19-2604. After review, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed defendant's convictions, but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "Idaho v. Ingraham" on Justia Law

Michael Reid appealed a magistrate court’s decision modifying the custody and visitation schedule involving his minor child whose custody he shared with his ex-wife, Victoria Plasse. Both parties moved to modify the prior judgment, arguing that there had been a material, substantial, and permanent change in circumstances requiring a modification of the child custody and visitation schedule. The magistrate court conducted a bench trial and determined that indeed there had been changes in circumstances requiring modification of the custody and visitation schedule. The magistrate court analyzed each of the factors listed in Idaho Code section 32-717 to determine how the schedule should be altered, and determined both parents would continue to share joint legal and physical custody of their minor child but amended the visitation schedule to minimize interactions between the parents, which had been a source of contention between them. Reid appealed the modified judgment. Finding no reversible error, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the magistrate court. View "Plasse v. Reid" on Justia Law

A coalition of media companies petitioned the Idaho Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition to vacate a nondissemination order issued by the magistrate court in the pending criminal action of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger. The Supreme Court expedited the case and ordered briefing from the parties. The Court also granted motions to intervene filed by the two parties to this case, the State of Idaho, Latah County Prosecutor (“the State”) and the defendant, Bryan Kohberger, who were also permitted to file briefs. After review of the briefs submitted, the Supreme Court dispensed with oral argument was unnecessary to resolve this case. The underlying case involved the 2022 murder of four University of Idaho students, for which Kohberger was arrested and charged with committing. The case drew widespread publicity. Recognizing the high-profile nature of the case and the extensive coverage it has received, along with the need to minimize possible pretrial prejudice, Kohberger’s attorneys and the attorneys for the State stipulated to the nondissemination order. Shortly after the order was entered, the medial companies challenged the constitutionality of the mondissemination order and sought extraordinary relief to protect free speech rights and the media’s ability to cover the case under the U.S. and Idaho Constitutions. The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that neither a writ of mandamus nor a writ of prohibition were appropriate remedies at this time. View "Associated Press, et al. v. Second Judicial District, et al." on Justia Law

When asked about recent negative behavior, defendant-appellant Jason Roberts’ fifteen-year-old son informed his mother that she would understand if she saw the signs that Roberts “was sexually hurting” him. A Children at Risk Evaluation Services (CARES) facility interview was ultimately arranged for the child. At the beginning of the interview, the interviewer informed the child that he would speak to a nurse after the interview. Upon hearing this, the child appeared taken aback. The interviewer clarified that “they’re just going to see how tall you are and how much you weigh.” The child responded, “Okay, I thought they were going to test me for [sexually transmitted infections]. I was like, ummm.” During the CARES interview, the child detailed how Roberts had sexually abused the child starting when he was seven or eight years old. The child related that the last episode of sexual abuse occurred about two and one-half years prior to the CARES interview. While discussing the instances of sexual abuse, the child stated that after the abuse, he struggled with “suicidal stuff” that resulted in the child being “locked up.” The child indicated that after his release, he again struggled with “suicidal stuff” because the abuse continued. He admitted during the interview that he was having “a couple” thoughts about suicide, described his preferred method of self-harm, and indicated that at the time of the interview, he felt like engaging in self-harm a “little bit.” After the CARES interview, Roberts was indicted by a grand jury for two counts of lewd conduct with a minor child under age sixteen. At trial, the district court admitted a recording of the CARES interview over Roberts’ objection. In doing so, the district court found that the child was capable of making statements for medical purposes and that “there is little reason to doubt [the child’s] motivation in making the disclosures.” Both the child and Roberts testified at trial. Ultimately, the jury found Roberts guilty of both counts. Roberts appealed. Finding no abuse of discretion in admitting the CARES interview, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed Roberts' judgment of conviction. View "Idaho v. Roberts" on Justia Law

Jane Doe appealed a district court’s decision to uphold the magistrate court’s judgment that Doe committed a battery—placing Doe within the purview of the Juvenile Corrections Act. Doe argued the magistrate court erred by using and applying the self-defense law reflected in Idaho Criminal Jury Instructions 1517 and 1518, instead of Idaho Code section 19-202A, Idaho’s “stand your ground” statute. Doe contended the statute’s legal standards differed from Instructions 1517 and 1518, and that the statutory standards should have been applied to her self-defense claim. To this, the Idaho Supreme Court disagreed: the "stand your ground" statute codified aspects of Idaho self-defense law that existed for over 100 years at common law, without abrogating those aspects it left uncodified. Thus, the Supreme Court held the district court did not err in upholding the magistrate court’s use and application of the pattern instructions, which presumptively reflected the elements of self-defense at common law. View "Idaho v. Jane Doe (2021-38)" on Justia Law

Redginald Laren appealed the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration following the grant of summary judgment in favor of Krystal Demoney-Hendrickson and the Estate of Cynthia K. Juker. In 1994, Larsen purchased unimproved property in Twin Falls County, Idaho. In 2014, Larsen and Cynthia Juker were in a romantic relationship. Despite participating in an unofficial ceremony resembling a wedding in 2018, the two were never legally married. Shortly after the relationship began, Larsen and Juker moved into a home Juker owned. In 2019, Larsen and Juker entered into a contract to develop his Twin Falls property. About a month later, Juker unexpectedly died. According to Larsen, he and Juker entered into a series of oral agreements around the time they sought financing to improve the Twin Falls property: she would sell her property and they would use the proceeds to pay down the loan for the Twin Falls improvement. In contrast, the Estate contended Juker died intestate and never indicated her wishes for what was to become of her real property. The Estate sold Juker’s property and the proceeds were not applied to the Twin Falls property loan. Both the Estate and Larsen moved for summary judgment on their claims for partition by sale and declaratory judgment. The district court granted the Estate’s motion and denied Larsen’s motion. The Idaho Supreme Court determined the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the Estate. After ascertaining the parties ownership interests, the Supreme Court determined the trial court had to determine whether partition by sale was warranted. View "Demoney-Hendrickson v. Larsen" on Justia Law

A group of pro se aggrieved property owners dubbed “Riverton Citizens Group,” timely filed a petition for judicial review challenging the Bingham County Commissioners’ (“the County”) decision to grant a zone change request. The caption of the petition named “Riverton Citizens Group” as the pro se petitioner, but the body of the petition then named the aggrieved property owners individually as the parties petitioning the County’s decision, while also providing that they were proceeding pro se under the title of “Riverton Citizens Group.” The petition was not signed by any of the aggrieved property owners. Instead, it was signed by a non-petitioner who purported to be the “agent” for “Riverton Citizens Group.” The purported “agent” was not licensed to practice law in Idaho. After the district court entered a notice of intent to dismiss the petition because Riverton Citizens Group was not represented by counsel, the aggrieved property owners attempted to correct the petition through five subsequent filings, each signed by only one of the aggrieved property owners. The district court subsequently issued a written decision, concluding the petition was “improperly filed” and therefore was not a “petition” that invoked the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 84(n). Because the time for filing a new “petition” under I.R.C.P. 84(n) had passed, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice—reasoning it no longer had jurisdiction. A licensed attorney did not appear on behalf of the aggrieved property owners until after the district court’s decision to dismiss. The Idaho Supreme Court vacated the district court’s order: “the errors in the caption and the omitted signatures were not fatal or so defective as to render the petition a nullity or ‘improperly filed’ such that the district court had no subject matter jurisdiction. Instead, these errors may be corrected through a filing or amended petition on remand that relates back to the date of the timely petition.” View "Riverton Citizens Group v. Bingham County Commissioners" on Justia Law