Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Respondent Mark Radford sued Appellant Jay Van Orden for damages from trespass of lands and trespass of cattle, among other claims, and also sued Appellant Seven J Ranches, Inc. (“Seven J”) for reimbursement for the construction of a partition fence pursuant to Idaho Code section 35-103. The two cases were later consolidated. Upon Van Orden’s motion for summary judgment, the district court determined that Radford had standing to sue Van Orden for trespass, even though Radford was not the property owner when the trespass occurred, because the previous property owner executed an assignment of claims to him. After a five-day bench trial, the district court found Van Orden was liable for trespass and awarded damages to Radford, and required Seven J to reimburse Radford for one half of a constructed partition fence. The district court also found Van Orden was not liable for trespass of cattle and ordered Radford to construct a gate at the southern edge of his property to allow Van Orden to access an easement that runs across Radford’s property. The district court determined Radford to be the overall prevailing party and awarded attorney fees only against Seven J. Van Orden and Seven J appealed the district court’s standing determination on summary judgment, the damages awarded against Van Orden on Radford’s trespass claim, the reimbursement awarded on the partition fence claim against Seven J, and the prevailing party determination for purpose of awarding attorney fees. Radford cross-appealed the district court’s denial of his claim for trespass of cattle damages and the district court’s requirement that he construct a gate for Van Orden at the edge of his property. Concerning Radford and Seven J’s appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s rulings that: (1) Radford had standing; (2) Radford proved the trespass damages with reasonable certainty; (3) Radford’s partition fence notice to Seven J was sufficient and required Seven J to reimburse Radford for the fence; (4) Radford was the prevailing party against Seven J and was entitled to costs and reasonable attorney fees against Seven J. As to Radford’s cross-appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling that Radford was required to remove his fence across the prescriptive easement or install a gate for Van Orden’s ingress and egress. However, the Court reversed the district court’s decision denying Radford damages for trespass of cattle against Van Orden, and remanded with instructions to consider whether Van Orden was entitled to relief under his unjust enrichment theory. View "Radford v. Van Orden" on Justia Law

At issue was whether a prescriptive easement existed to provide road access and utilities to a land-locked parcel and mining claim on Lake Pend Oreille in northern Idaho. Matt and Bonnie Latvala purchased the land-locked parcel, known as “Sulphide South,” in 2015 and litigation soon followed. Following a four-day bench trial and site visit, the district court quieted a prescriptive easement to the Latvalas through and over what was known as South Camp Bay Road, as well as confirming and defining an express easement across another parcel known as “Sulphide North.” Some neighboring landowners appealed the district court’s judgment, arguing the court’s findings were not supported by substantial and competent evidence. These neighbors also argued the district court erroneously allowed the prescriptive easement to be unreasonably expanded. After review, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s determination that the use of the road at issue by Latvala’s predecessors in interest during the active mining years (1946 to 1954) created a prescriptive easement; however, the Court reversed the district court’s judgment expanding the scope of the easement.The district court’s award of costs to Latvala as the prevailing party was vacated and the matter remanded so that the district court could consider Latvala’s remaining claims about whether South Camp Bay Road was a public road and whether he has an easement by necessity. View "Latvala v. Green Enterprises Inc." on Justia Law

Greg and Cyndi Gomersall filed suit on behalf of their minor child, W.G.G., claiming he received negligent medical treatment at St. Luke’s Regional Medical Center (SLRMC) in Boise when he was injured in December 2010. W.G.G. was 6 years old at the time of the incident. The Gomersalls filed suit against SLRMC on January 25, 2019, more than eight years after W.G.G. was alleged to have been injured. SLRMC moved for summary judgment on the basis that the Gomersalls’ medical malpractice action was time-barred under Idaho Code sections 5-219(4) and 5-230. The district court granted SLRMC’s motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Gomersalls contended on appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court that the district court erred because Idaho Code section 5-230 was unconstitutional. Specifically, they argued that section 5-230 violated W.G.G.’s due process and equal protection rights by failing to toll the statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims until the age of majority. They also contended the district court erred when it held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel did not preclude SLRMC’s statute of limitations defense. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of SLRMC. View "Gomersall v. St. Luke's Regional Medical Center" on Justia Law

Fifteen-year-old Lucas Orozco was charged with robbery and burglary, both felonies, for allegedly robbing a convenience store. After a magistrate court determined there was probable cause to charge Orozco with the felonies, it waived juvenile jurisdiction and bound him over to district court as an adult pursuant to Idaho Code section 20-509. Orozco objected to this automatic waiver, filing a motion with the district court challenging the constitutionality of section 20-509. The district court denied the motion, relying on precedent from the Idaho Court of Appeals, which previously upheld the constitutionality of section 20-509. Orozco appealed, arguing that the automatic waiver denied him procedural due process protections afforded to him by the U.S. Constitution. Finding no reversible error, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Idaho v. Orozco" on Justia Law

J.R. Simplot Company (“Simplot”) hired Erik Knudsen for a position as a packaging engineer. Early on in his employment, Knudsen was told that he would be the startup manager on a Simplot project in Grand Forks, North Dakota. Knudsen was unfamiliar with the startup manager position and questioned whether those job duties were fairly within the scope of his employment as a packaging engineer. Simplot and Knudsen disagreed as to the nature of his job, leading to the eventual termination of Knudsen’s employment. After his dismissal, Knudsen filed this action, alleging fraud, promissory estoppel, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted Simplot’s motion for summary judgment as to all of Knudsen’s claims and denied Simplot’s subsequent motion for attorney’s fees. The Idaho Supreme Court determined Knudsen's fraud claim was cognizable notwithstanding the at-will employment doctrine. However, the Supreme Court concluded summary judgment on all of Knudsen's claims was appropriate. View "Knudsen v. J.R. Simplot Company" on Justia Law

This case arose from an Idaho Industrial Commission determination denying an application for unemployment benefits. William Wittkopf appealed pro se the Commission’s determination that he was ineligible for unemployment benefits because he voluntarily quit his job without good cause and he willfully made a false statement or willfully failed to report a material fact in his unemployment application. On appeal, Wittkopf challenged the factual findings made by the Commission and argued it violated his right to due process by taking into consideration the fact that he voluntarily terminated his employment approximately two and a half years prior to applying for unemployment benefits. After review, the Idaho Supreme Court concluded: (1) Wittkopf failed to provide a cogent argument on appeal regarding whether his right to due process was violated; (2) the Commission’s determination that Wittkopf voluntarily terminated his employment at Stewart’s Firefighter without good cause and without exhausting all reasonable alternatives was supported by substantial and competent evidence; and (3) the Commission’s determination that Wittkopf willfully made a false statement or willfully failed to report a material fact in order to obtain benefits was supported by substantial and competent evidence. Accordingly, the Commission’s decision and order denying Wittkopf’s application for unemployment benefits was affirmed. View "Wittkopf v. Stewart's Firefighter Food Catering, Inc." on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court was asked to clarify the meaning and extent of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel. Appellant Alfredo Alvarado argued his rights were violated because his public defender had previously represented a witness who was adverse to him on a felony charge. After disclosing the conflict, Alvarado’s attorney agreed that he and the public defender’s office would decline any future representation of the witness. However, Alvarado argued that counsel continued to have an actual conflict of interest because his ongoing ethical duties to the witness and former client prevented him from effectively cross- examining the witness. Alvarado contended this resulted in a structural defect in the trial, which necessitated overturning his convictions. In the alternative, Alvarado argued his unified aggregate sentence of twenty years to life for attempted strangulation and domestic abuse was excessive. After review, the Supreme Court determined Alvarado failed to show his counsel's representation constituted a fundamental error. He neither demonstrated an error affected the outcome of the trial, nor shown that a structural error denied him the right to counsel during a critical stage of the proceeding. Therefore, the Court ruled Alvarado was not deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel. The Court also held the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Alvarado to a twenty-year to life aggregate sentence on his two felony convictions. View "Idaho v. Alvarado" on Justia Law

Defendant Max Gorringe appeaeled a district court’s order amending of a no contact order. A no contact order was originally entered against Gorringe after he was initially charged with attempted strangulation in 2011. Upon acceptance of Gorringe’s guilty plea to that charge in 2012, the district court rescinded the existing no contact order and in its place included no contact provisions in the Judgment and Commitment. In 2018, Gorringe was charged with a misdemeanor for allegedly violating the no contact provisions contained in the original Judgment and Commitment. Gorringe sought clarification of the existing provisions originally entered the judgment, then moved to modify the no contact provisions. The parties stipulated to an amendment of the order in exchange for the dismissal of Gorringe’s misdemeanor charge. Although the district court expressed reservations regarding its jurisdiction to amend the no contact provisions that had been incorporated into the prior Judgment and Commitment, the district court nonetheless amended the 2012 no contact order based on the parties’ stipulation and the State’s assurance that the victim did not object to the amendment. Gorringe appealed the district court’s order amending the no contact provisions, asserting that the no contact provisions included in the 2012 Judgment and Commitment were invalid. Gorringe also claimed the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to amend the order in 2018. The Idaho Supreme Court concluded the no contact provision in the district court's 2012 Judgment was unenforceable; the court lacked jurisdiction to amend the 2012 no contact order. The district court order amending the no contact order was thus reversed, and the provisions in the 2012 sentencing order were void. View "Idaho v. Gorringe" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was whether claimant Curtis Stanley filed a timely complaint against the Industrial Special Indemnity Fund ("ISIF") when Stanley filed his complaint more than five years after his industrial accident and more than one year after receiving his last payment of income benefits. The Idaho Industrial Commission (“Commission”) held it did not have continuing jurisdiction to entertain Stanley’s complaint against ISIF for non-medical benefits. The Commission found Idaho Code section 72-706 barred Stanley’s complaint and dismissed it. Stanley appealed, arguing continuing jurisdiction over medical benefits alone was sufficient to confer jurisdiction over complaints against ISIF and that the Commission erred in determining section 72-706 barred his complaint. Finding the Commission erred in determining section 72-706 barred Stanley's complaint, the Idaho Supreme Court reversed the Commission’s decision. View "Stanley v. Idaho Industrial Special Indemnity Fund" on Justia Law

The State charged Carli Campbell as an accessory to a felony under Idaho Code section 18-205(1) for withholding or concealing information from police officers about an aggravated battery and burglary that occurred in her home in December 2017. After the evidentiary phase of the trial was completed, Campbell requested the district court instruct the jury that the State was required to prove that the alleged assailant, Michael Cross, committed the aggravated battery or burglary beyond a reasonable doubt. The State opposed this request and the district court agreed, concluding that while the State was required to prove Campbell had knowledge of the conduct that constituted an aggravated battery or a burglary, it was not was required to prove Cross committed the aggravated battery or burglary beyond a reasonable doubt. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Campbell guilty. Campbell now appeals her conviction to this Court. Finding no reversible error in the district court's decision, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. View "Idaho v. Campbell" on Justia Law