James F. Ailshie

In State v. Hansen, the defendant was charged with unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor as a second offense after two state investigators purchased and consumed drinks at the Empire Bar in Blackfoot, identifying them as whiskey based on appearance, taste, and smell. A jury convicted the defendant, and the court imposed a sentence of six months in county jail plus a $500 fine, with additional jail time if the fine went unpaid. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, reasoning that the evidence was sufficient under the presumption that a purchaser receives what was ordered and paid for, that the trial court's exclusion of certain cross-examination and its jury instructions were proper, and that the sentence combining imprisonment, fine, and default provisions was statutorily authorized.

criminal law

This case, Williams v. Koelsch, concerns whether a court may intervene to control or prohibit actions taken by the chief executive under constitutional authority. The court held that it cannot restrict the executive's discretion in advance but may review the legal effect of an executive act after it has been completed. The reasoning rests on separation of powers principles, which distinguish the roles of the three branches of government and limit judicial involvement to post-action inquiries, as illustrated by the distinction from United States v. United Mine Workers of America and the citation to Stein v. Morrison.

federal power

This case is an appeal from a conviction for assault with intent to commit rape, involving a dispute between neighboring couples in a shared apartment building that escalated to an alleged attack by the defendant on the female neighbor. The court reversed the conviction and remanded for a possible new trial, holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly lacking corroboration of the prosecutrix's testimony and failing to establish the required intent. The court further reasoned that statements made by the defendant while in custody without a warrant, verified complaint, or notification of rights were improperly admitted as confessions or admissions, and the trial court erred by not giving a proper jury instruction on the admissibility of such statements.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a challenge to the will of Z.V. Swearingen, which had been admitted to probate, on the grounds of undue influence by the beneficiary who was also the testator's longtime attorney. The probate court dismissed the contest, and the district court affirmed. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, finding that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the conclusion that no undue influence was exerted. The court reasoned that the contestant bears the burden of proving undue influence, which does not shift to the proponent, and that a confidential relationship like attorney-client alone does not establish undue influence, especially where the testator was strong-minded and independent. Additional claims regarding a purported later will were not properly raised in the pleadings and lacked supporting evidence.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a claim for death benefits under Idaho’s Workmen’s Compensation Law by the widow of a logger killed in a workplace accident. The employer had obtained a policy from the State Insurance Fund effective in October 1944 and later obtained a second policy from the Idaho Compensation Company in January 1945; after the accident the Board ruled both insurers liable as co-sureties. The Industrial Accident Board awarded benefits and the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Fund had never properly cancelled its policy because it failed to notify the employer or the Board and did not return the unearned premium, leaving the policy in force under the policy terms and statutory requirements. The court further noted that the employer was permitted to carry additional insurance and that each insurer’s assumption of liability remained effective.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Beard v. Lucky Friday Silver-Lead Mines, a mine employee suffered the loss of one eye and permanent partial vision loss in the other after rock particles struck him while operating a mechanical drill, and he sought workers' compensation as a married man with three dependent minor children earning average weekly wages of $55.50. The Industrial Accident Board awarded weekly compensation of $19 for 99% of 146.6 weeks plus a payment to the Industrial Special Indemnity Fund. The employer appealed, contending the weekly rate was capped at $16 under the specific-injury statute. The court affirmed the award, holding that the Workmen's Compensation Law must be construed as a whole and that the legislature's most recent amendments to the total-disability provisions controlled to raise the applicable weekly compensation limits.

labor & employment

The case involved a dispute over the election of directors for Merger Mines Corporation, an Arizona company that had taken over Idaho mining properties and conducted business in the state. After a prior appeal was dismissed, the lower court approved a stockholders' meeting and election, confirmed the special master's report, and ordered that the elected directors be seated. Appellant Pearson challenged these orders, primarily contesting the Idaho court's jurisdiction. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's rulings, holding that the corporation had submitted to Idaho jurisdiction under the state constitution and statutes by operating in Idaho and merging with Idaho entities, making it subject to judicial review of its corporate elections just as a domestic corporation would be.

business & regulatoryprocedureelections

In Hancock v. Halliday, the dispute centered on whether a contract physician became liable for a tort in connection with an employer-employee agreement, specifically if the doctor participated as a stranger to the contract or because of it. Chief Justice Ailshie dissents from the majority's resolution and instead follows the positions he previously outlined in the same case at 65 Idaho 645 and in related matters such as Lebak v. Nelson. He contends that the majority did not resolve the key question of the doctor's role, emphasizing that the physician's involvement stemmed directly from the existence of the employer contract.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

The case involved a worker who suffered an eye injury while carrying wooden shims through brush during logging railroad work for Potlatch Forests, Inc. He had waived standard workers' compensation medical benefits in favor of a hospital contract with the Western Hospital Association. After the injury, he did not report it to his employer, seek treatment from the company physician, or file a claim until months later, ultimately losing the eye to glaucoma. The Industrial Accident Board denied his compensation claim, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the employee failed to provide notice as soon as practicable under the applicable statute and did not meet his burden of showing the employer was not prejudiced by the delay.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case Clark v. Alloway concerns the validity of Boise City Ordinance No. 1354, which amends an earlier vagrancy law to define and punish as vagrants various categories of persons, including those without visible means of support who fail to seek work for ten days, beggars, roamers without lawful business, idle persons wandering streets at night or lodging in unauthorized places, lewd individuals associated with houses of ill-fame, prostitutes, and common drunkards, with penalties of fines from ten to one hundred dollars. The majority affirmed the judgment in the case. The dissenting justice concluded that the ordinance conflicts with the Idaho constitution and state laws and observed that the text of exhibit G differs from the printed version of the corresponding Boise City Code section 4-1501.

criminal law

This case is a wrongful death action brought by the surviving wife and children of Marvin G. Hughes against R.W. Hudelson for damages arising from a February 1945 truck rollover on an Idaho highway. Hughes had been riding as a non-paying guest in the rear of Hudelson's pickup when the driver, momentarily blinded by oncoming headlights, drove onto the soft shoulder, lost control while returning to the pavement, and caused the vehicle to roll over, killing Hughes. The trial court apparently entered judgment for the defendant, but the Idaho Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial. The court held that evidence of the defendant's admission to driving at 45 miles per hour (creating a prima facie presumption of negligence) together with physical facts such as tire marks on the pavement and shoulder was sufficient to present a jury question on whether the driving was reckless within the meaning of the state's guest statute.

torts & liability

The case Andrews v. Grover concerned a dispute over dividing real property subject to easements for pipelines carrying water, heat, and sewerage. The court reversed the lower court's judgment, determining that physical division of the property was impracticable. The core reasoning was that attempting division would create ongoing conflicts between the parties over repairs, use, and maintenance of the pipelines and easement, making a court-ordered sale the appropriate resolution.

property

This case involved a dispute over enforcement of a written lease and option-to-purchase agreement for real property in Clark County, Idaho, under which the buyer paid $5,000 upfront, took possession, paid interest, mortgage installments, and taxes, and sought to exercise the option to buy for a total of $7,000 by assuming the existing mortgage. The sellers attempted to revoke the escrow instructions after the option deadline and refused to complete the sale. The trial court granted specific performance, finding the contract valid and the buyer's rights unforfeited; the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the sellers had waived strict timely payment by accepting partial payments and assuring the buyer they only wanted interest for the time being, that the buyer's performance satisfied the agreement, and that community-property concerns did not bar enforcement because the wife had joined in the original deed placed in escrow.

property

This case involved parents appealing a probate court's adjudication of five minors as juvenile delinquents under Idaho's juvenile statutes for committing burglaries, grand larcenies, and robberies in 1944-1945, along with a cross-appeal challenging the court's authority to commit them to the Industrial Training School until age twenty-one. The district court had affirmed the delinquency findings but held the commitment portion invalid, prompting further review on grounds that the complaint failed to state sufficient statutory grounds for jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the proceedings were civil and paternal in character rather than criminal, that the information met the requirements of section 31-1303 to establish probable delinquency, and that prior precedents had upheld the constitutionality and jurisdiction of the probate court in such matters under chapter 13, Title 31, I.C.A.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

This case involved a declaratory judgment action by a Canyon County taxpayer challenging the constitutionality of a 1944 Idaho emergency statute that authorized county commissioners to levy up to 1.5 mills on all taxable property in the county to create a County Teachers Aid Fund for needy school districts facing teacher salary shortages due to wartime conditions. The trial court ruled the act unconstitutional and voided any levies made under it. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that the act did not violate Article 3, Section 19 of the state constitution, which prohibits local or special laws for the assessment and collection of taxes or the management of common schools. The court reasoned that the statute applied uniformly statewide to all counties and districts, left needs determinations at the local level, and did not address school management but rather supported the state's general educational policy under Article 9, Section 1.

taxes

The case concerned a workers' compensation claim filed by Lillian Walters after her husband Ray, a city electrician for Weiser, died in January 1945 from rheumatic heart disease complicated by influenza. The Industrial Accident Board denied benefits, finding no compensable accident, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed that ruling. The facts showed that Walters had a pre-existing heart condition, caught the flu on New Year's Day, and continued working—including climbing trees and handling wires on January 10—until he became too ill to continue; he died three days later. The court held that death resulted from the disease and the cumulative strain of ordinary work activity on his weakened condition, without any specific mishap, fortuitous event, or sudden change in working conditions that would qualify as an accident under the statute.

labor & employment

The case concerned a dispute between a widow and practical nurse who had worked as a housekeeper and caregiver for an elderly man and the man's associate, over whether the man had issued her an $8,000 check shortly before his death or only a $500 check; the plaintiff sought the difference, alleging the defendant had wrongfully prevented payment of the larger amount. After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment for the defendant. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial. The court held that the trial judge erred by denying the plaintiff timely access to the check for expert examination and by unduly restricting cross-examination of the defendant on the circumstances of the check's execution and related documents, which prevented full development of the central factual issue.

propertyprocedure

The case involved the State of Idaho attempting to collect unemployment compensation excise taxes, interest, and penalties from International Shoe Company, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Missouri. The district court twice quashed service of summons on the company, ruling that it engaged solely in interstate commerce, was not doing business in Idaho, and thus was not subject to the court's jurisdiction under the relevant statutes. The Idaho Supreme Court issued a permanent writ of mandate directing the district court to assume jurisdiction, reasoning that the company's use of resident salesmen in Idaho to solicit orders constituted doing business within the state for purposes of the Unemployment Compensation Law and service of process.

business & regulatorytaxesprocedurelabor & employment

The case involved defendant Koseris's conviction for gambling offenses at the 30 Club near the Bannock-Power county line in Idaho, following a search and seizure of gambling equipment. The defendant challenged the justice court's jurisdiction, arguing that the location was in Power County, that the applicable boundary statute (sec. 19-305, I.C.A.) was unconstitutional or had been repealed by a 1945 amendment, and raising issues with the charging document, evidence, and jury instructions. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the justice court had jurisdiction under the longstanding boundary statute, that the 1945 amendment did not repeal the law or apply retrospectively to bar the prosecution, and that the defendant had an adequate remedy at law; other assignments of error were rejected as meritless.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a dispute over rights to the Herschey lode mining claim in Shoshone County, Idaho. Plaintiff Hayden Hill Consolidated Mining Co. sued to uphold its adverse claim to the property after acquiring title through the original locator's heirs, while defendant Lincoln Mining Co. had contracted to purchase the claim but later forfeited the agreement. During the contract period, the defendant located the overlapping Goethe claim and amended the Herschey boundaries. The trial court found that the defendant acted in a fiduciary capacity under the purchase agreement and was estopped from asserting adverse rights to the Herschey ground. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff, concluding that the evidence supported the fiduciary relationship and estoppel findings and that the defendant had notice of the prior claim.

property