Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Mother and Father married in 2016. In May 2020, Child was born in Utah County, Utah. Following Child’s birth, Mother and Father lived in Utah with Child until July 21, 2020, when Mother and Child relocated to Rigby, Idaho, without Father. Since July 21, 2020, neither Child nor Mother returned to Utah, although Father continued to live there. Father maintains that Mother expressed an intent to return to living in Utah by September 2020 and actively participated in searching for apartments with Father in Utah after she and Child moved to Idaho. Mother disputes that she ever expressed an intention to return to Utah after July 21. In October 2020, Father petitioned for divorce from Mother in Utah; the same day, he filed a motion for temporary orders seeking custody and visitation rights to Child. The Idaho magistrate court’s decision in this case indicated that Mother answered the Utah proceeding on December 10. Then, in February 2021, Mother petitioned for divorce from Father in Jefferson County, Idaho. After Father was served with Mother’s petition on February 12, he retained Idaho counsel to specially appear and contest Idaho jurisdiction. Subsequently, Father filed a motion to dismiss Mother’s petition for divorce for lack of jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, arguing that the Utah court had “home state” jurisdiction. The Utah court held oral argument on Father’s motion for temporary custody orders and Mother’s motion to transfer jurisdiction and issued its written order on April 12. Pertinent to this matter, the Utah court concluded that Utah was not an inconvenient forum and that Mother had stipulated in her answer that jurisdiction was proper in Utah. In May, the Idaho magistrate court heard oral argument on Mother’s motion to accept jurisdiction and Father’s motion to dismiss. Following the hearing, the Idaho magistrate court informally conferred with the Utah court about which state was the “more proper” home state, and concluded that the Utah court was the more appropriate jurisdiction to be the home state under the UCCJEA. The magistrate court entered a judgment on May 28, dismissing the Idaho proceeding. Mother appealed dismissal of her proceedings. But the Idaho Supreme Court determined the Idaho magistrate court did not err in denying Mother's motion to accept jurisdiction and dismissing her petition for divorce. View "Swanson v. Swanson" on Justia Law

Erick Pena filed a declaratory action against Viking Insurance Company of Wisconsin (“Viking”), alleging the automobile insurance policy he purchased was illegal because it provided illusory minimum limits of UIM coverage. Pena then filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to declare that the UIM coverage was illusory. Viking filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that the policy was not illusory because it provided tangible benefits to a group of insured persons and that the offset provision in the policy complied with Idaho public policy. The district court granted Viking’s motion for summary judgment. Pena timely appealed. After review, the Idaho Supreme Court reversed, finding the policy at issue indeed provided illusory coverage. View "Pena v. Viking Insurance Company" on Justia Law

This case arose out of multiple petitions challenging the constitutionality of Plan L03, the legislative redistricting plan adopted by the Idaho Commission for Reapportionment (“the Commission”) following the 2020 federal census. Petitioners generally argued that Plan L03 split more counties than was required to comport with federal constitutional requirements, rendering Plan L03 unconstitutional under the Idaho Constitution. The petitions were filed in the Idaho Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Petitioners requested the Court issue a writ of prohibition to restrain the Secretary of State from transmitting a copy of the Commission’s Final Report and Plan L03 to the President Pro Tempore of the Idaho Senate and the Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives. Finding there was no constitutional violation, the Supreme Court declined to issue the writ. View "Durst et al v. ID Comm. for Reapportionment" on Justia Law

Robert, David, and Troy Taylor were partners in a commercial fire prevention business based in Alaska. Troy later formed his own business that directly competed with the partnership. In January 2015, Robert, David, and Troy signed an eight-paragraph agreement (“the Agreement”) that settled all potential legal claims relating to Troy’s competing business. The Agreement provided that Robert and David would buy Troy’s interest in the partnership. In exchange, Troy agreed to pay Robert and David $30,000 each and not work in the fire prevention industry in Alaska and Nevada. In March 2018, Robert and David brought this action in Idaho alleging, among other things, that Troy had breached the Agreement by working for a competing fire prevention business in Nevada. Troy counterclaimed, asserting Robert and David had breached the Agreement. Robert and David voluntarily dismissed some claims and the district court dismissed the rest. In addition, the district court granted summary judgment in Troy’s favor on his breach of contract counterclaim. Robert and David appealed, challenging the district court’s rulings that: (1) the noncompete provision in the Agreement was unenforceable; (2) the Agreement was severable and enforceable without the noncompete provision; and (3) they could not assert an affirmative defense of excusable nonperformance based on their allegation that Troy materially breached the Agreement. After review, the Idaho Supreme Court found the district court only erred in finding the noncompete clause was severable from the Agreement as a matter of law. The Court affirmed in all other respects. View "Taylor v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Vincent Brown made two oral requests for reduction of sentence prior to the district court relinquishing jurisdiction and imposing sentence. After sentence was imposed, Brown filed one written motion to reduce sentence pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 35(b). The district court denied the motion, and Brown appealed that denial. Before reaching the merits of Brown’s appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court addressed three prior decisions concerning Rule 35(b). The Court disavowed its decision in Idaho v. Wersland, 873 P.2d 144 (1994), and abrogated the holding in Idaho v. Bottens, 52 P.3d 875 (Ct. App. 2002) to the extent those cases treated the one motion limit in Rule 35(b) as jurisdictional in effect. The Court also clarified that the one motion limit in Rule 35(b) was a procedural rule, but the Court applied this announcement only prospectively. In addition, the Court abrogated Idaho v. Hurst, 258 P.3d 950 (Ct. App. 2011) where the Court of Appeals interpreted the one motion limit in Rule 35(b) as applying to both written and oral motions for a reduction of sentence at any point after a sentence is announced. Here, the Court affirmed the district court’s decision denying Brown’s Rule 35(b) motion to reduce his sentence: "Brown did not show that under any reasonable view of the facts, the district court’s sentence is excessive." View "Idaho v. Brown" on Justia Law

In 2006, Timothy Dunlap was sentenced to death by a Caribou County, Idaho jury for the death of a Soda Springs bank teller killed in 1991. In 2008, Dunlap filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that numerous errors had occurred at his 2006 sentencing hearing. The district court dismissed the petition in its entirety. Dunlap appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the dismissal of all but two of Dunlap’s claims: (1) multiple claims of prosecutorial misconduct under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959); and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Upon remand, the district court held two evidentiary hearings, one involving each of Dunlap’s remaining claims. The district court found that Dunlap had failed to establish either claim and denied Dunlap’s request for post-conviction relief. Dunlap timely appealed. Finding no reversible error in these decisions, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Dunlap v. Idaho" on Justia Law

Taleetha Fuentes filed a worker's compensation complaint against her employer Cavco Industries and Cavco’s surety, Sentry Casualty Company (collectively, Defendants). Fuentes filed her complaint in July 2019, and the Defendants denied the claim. During discovery, the Defendants filed a motion to compel in October 2019, which was granted. Following no response from Fuentes, the Defendants filed a motion for sanctions, and Fuentes again did not respond. On December 19, 2019, the full Idaho Industrial Commission issued an Order Dismissing Complaint, citing Industrial Commission Judicial Rule of Procedure (JRP) 12(B). Five months later, in May 2020, Fuentes responded to the initial discovery requests and moved to retain the case on the active calendar, but her filing and motion were returned “unfiled” as explained in an email from the assigned Referee. Fuentes also moved for reconsideration of the dismissal and filed a petition to vacate the order of dismissal under JRP 15. The Commission denied both motions. The Idaho Supreme Court determined the Commission acted in excess of its powers when it misapplied JRP12(B) in the initial dismissal order, and in applying JRP 16 to Fuentes' case. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Commission’s decision to dismiss Fuentes’ case, and vacated the order. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Fuentes v. Cavco Industries, Inc." on Justia Law

Adam Paulson was arrested for misdemeanor driving under the influence (DUI) at the scene of the accident; he struck and killed a pedestrian with his vehicle as the pedestrian was crossing a road on a late November 2017 night. He was later charged with vehicular manslaughter, and a jury trial was held in October and November 2018. The jury convicted Paulson of vehicular manslaughter. Paulson appealed his conviction, arguing the district court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on the causation element required by Idaho Code section 18- 4006(3)(b). Paulson argued the district court should have instructed the jury regarding proximate, intervening, and superseding causes because the pedestrian, who was intoxicated, crossed the road in an unlit area with no marked crosswalk. Paulson also contended his right to a fair trial was violated when the district court instructed the jury using Idaho Criminal Jury Instruction (ICJI) 709, arguing that ICJI 709 did not set forth all the elements of Idaho Code section 18-4006(3)(b). After review, the Idaho Supreme Court found the district court erred in declining to instruct the jury on the required causal link between a defendant’s unlawful conduct and the victim’s death. The Court also found the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on whether the pedestrian’s conduct constituted an intervening, superseding cause and on a pedestrian’s duties when walking along roadways. The Supreme Court vacated Paulson's vehicular manslaughter conviction; the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Idaho v. Paulson" on Justia Law

Jared and Katherine Sommer brought a declaratory judgment claim against Misty Valley, LLC, after receiving written notice that the real estate developer planned to use an express easement across the Sommers’ land for access to a recently platted residential subdivision. The Sommers contended the planned use constituted an impermissible expansion of the scope of the easement, and brought a claim to terminate the easement. After a bench trial, the district court limited the use of the easement to the dominant parcel, which only included part of Misty Valley’s planned subdivision, and declined to terminate it. Misty Valley appealed the district court’s judgment, and the Sommers cross-appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Sommer v. Misty Valley, LLC" on Justia Law

Edward and Janice Easterling owned three contiguous parcels of real property in Ammon, Idaho. The Easterlings brought suit against Hal Pacific Properties, L.P. (“HAL”), claiming an easement by necessity over and upon HAL’s property in order to access their three merged parcels. Following cross-motions for summary judgment, a motion for reconsideration, and a short bench trial, the district court largely ruled in the Easterlings’ favor. The district court denied HAL’s affirmative defense that the Easterlings’ claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The district court further held that the Easterlings were entitled to an easement by necessity over and upon the HAL Parcel to allow access to all three of the Easterlings’ merged parcels. The district court placed the easement at the western border of the HAL Parcel and set its width at twenty-six feet. HAL appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court, contending the district court erred by denying its statute of limitations affirmative defense, granting the Easterlings’ claim for an easement by necessity for all three of their parcels, and improperly determining the location and width of the easement. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision at summary judgment rejecting HAL’s statute of limitations defense under Idaho Code section 5-224. Because of this, the Court vacated the district court’s judgment and reversed its decisions that the Northern Parcel was entitled to an easement by necessity over the HAL Parcel; and that the width of the easement was set at twenty-six feet. The Supreme Court further reversed the district court’s decisions setting the location of the easement and granting an easement by necessity as to the Southern and Eastern Parcels over the HAL Parcel. The matte was remanded for further proceedings. View "Easterling v. Hal Pacific Properties, L.P." on Justia Law