Donald B. Anderson

In Grant v. Clarke, plaintiff Sadie Grant sued her daughter Marie Yotz and driver Frank Clarke for personal injuries from a nighttime head-on collision on U.S. Highway 30, alleging that both vehicles crossed the center line and that Yotz drove with reckless disregard under the guest statute while Clarke was negligent. The trial court denied Grant's late motion to amend her complaint to drop the guest allegation and assert ordinary negligence or last-clear-chance against Yotz, granted a nonsuit in Yotz's favor, and submitted questions of joint enterprise and contributory negligence to the jury, which returned a verdict for Clarke. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court held that the amendment was untimely and would have changed the theory of the case, that the sheriff's opinion testimony on the point of impact was properly admitted based on his experience, and that the joint-enterprise issue was properly submitted; it therefore affirmed both judgments. The case centered on application of the guest statute, evidentiary rulings, and imputation of negligence in an automobile accident.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved adjoining landowners where the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants' private driveway, used as a levee for an irrigation pumping pond, created a nuisance by backing up water and flooding about six to eight acres of the plaintiffs' pasture land. The defendants argued they had acquired a prescriptive easement to maintain the driveway and flood the land through open, notorious, and adverse use over more than five years. The trial court found that the flooding had only begun in 1952, less than five years before the suit was filed, so no prescriptive right had been established, and it ordered the defendants to abate the nuisance by installing a larger culvert while awarding $1,500 in damages for the permanent reduction in the land's value. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's factual findings on the timing of the flooding were supported by substantial evidence and would not be disturbed, and that the measure of damages as the difference in market value was appropriate given the lack of evidence on mitigation.

propertytorts & liability

This case concerns custody of two minor children after their parents' 1953 divorce in Missouri, where the father initially received custody and the mother received weekend visitation. After the father moved with the children to Idaho without prior notice, the mother obtained a Missouri court order vacating the father's custody and then filed this action in Idaho seeking custody herself. The district court awarded custody to the father with visitation rights to the mother. The court treated the proceeding as an original custody determination (since neither parent held a current decree) and held that the children's welfare and best interests are paramount, neither parent was unfit, the children were thriving in their current environment, and the father had not abused his discretion in the award.

family law

This case is a declaratory judgment action concerning the parties' rights under a May 12, 1945 contract that settled the plaintiff's prior claims for compensation related to a 1943 mining lease and option agreement on claims in Lemhi County, Idaho. The contract provided the plaintiff with percentages of installment payments and one-sixth of royalties from the lessee, later assigned to Calera Mining Company; after the lessee agreed to higher minimum quarterly royalties in exchange for operational delays, a dispute arose over whether the plaintiff was entitled to a share of the increases. The district court held the 1945 contract clear and unambiguous, ruled the plaintiff entitled to one-sixth of the increased royalties plus interest, and ordered the defendants to execute an assignment allowing direct payment from the mining company. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the contract language required no jury interpretation, that proposed amendments alleging lack of consideration or illegality were properly denied as conclusory and untimely, and that the assignment was appropriate to prevent multiple actions.

propertyprocedure

This case involved an appeal from a default judgment in a lawsuit to foreclose on a real estate purchase contract after the buyers allegedly defaulted on payments. The defendants' attorneys filed a demurrer but failed to appear at the hearing due to one being on vacation, leading to its withdrawal with time to answer; no answer was filed, and default judgment was entered. The defendants later moved to set aside the default under Idaho Code § 5-905, citing their attorneys' mistake, inadvertence, and neglect, and tendered a proposed answer claiming breach by the sellers. The district court denied the motion, but the Idaho Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the statute mandates relief from a default when it results from an attorney's failure to file or serve papers timely, regardless of the court's discretion in other circumstances.

procedureproperty

The case involved a property owner seeking a writ of mandate to compel the City of Moscow to enforce a 1933 zoning ordinance setting building setback lines based on the average distance of existing houses on the same block, in order to require neighbors to move or remove their newly built residence. After the trial court dismissed the petition, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the ordinance was invalid. The core reasoning was that the ordinance violated Idaho Code § 50-402 by failing to provide uniform regulations for buildings throughout each zoning district, as setback lines could vary between blocks, sides of the street, or even change over time as new houses were built.

property

The case concerned whether Idaho's Youth Rehabilitation Act could constitutionally transfer jurisdiction over felony charges against a 17-year-old from the district court to the probate court for treatment as a juvenile delinquency matter. The probate court had found the minor delinquent after a hearing and placed him on probation, but the district court held the relevant provision unconstitutional and ordered dismissal. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that I.C. sec. 16-1803(1)(c) violated article 5, section 20 of the state constitution by stripping the district court of its original jurisdiction over felonies when the accused waived juvenile protections and asserted rights to criminal procedures such as a preliminary hearing and jury trial. The court reasoned that the legislature could not reclassify felonies as civil proceedings to bypass the constitutional grant of jurisdiction, distinguishing this mandatory transfer from earlier statutes that allowed exceptions for felonies.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Sam Irvine, who suffered a severe on-the-job back injury in 1948 that left him a paraplegic with ongoing complications including pressure sores and chronic bladder infections. Irvine sought continued medical supplies, medicines, and nursing care under a hospital contract originally with Western Hospital Association and later assumed by Dr. R. L. Longanecker, after the contract was canceled and care was discontinued. The Industrial Accident Board denied some earlier awards but addressed ongoing liability, and the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the contract and applicable law required the hospital provider to furnish reasonable ongoing care for the work-related conditions despite their incurable nature. The core reasoning centered on the scope of the hospital contract's obligations, the distinction between temporary and permanent disabilities under Idaho's workers' compensation statutes, and the limits of contractual exclusions for incurable conditions in the context of industrial injuries.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

This case arose from financial disputes between the owner of a lumber yard and its manager, including claims for money received on open account, wages for work and labor, repayment of loans, and the value of property, with the manager asserting an oral partnership agreement rather than an employment relationship. After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $10,927.51, including interest. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that an appeal bond signed by a married woman living with her husband was merely defective rather than void under Idaho statutes governing married women's property rights, that any defects were waived by the respondent's failure to object within the statutory 20-day period, and that a supersedeas bond had been properly substituted. The court also upheld the trial court's allowance of amendments to conform to the proof, addition of statutory interest to the verdict, and jury instructions on partnership formation, while overruling prior cases that had deemed such bonds void.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved owners of licensed beer establishments in unincorporated areas of Latah County challenging a 1954 county ordinance that restricted beer sales and consumption to hours stricter than state law, specifically prohibiting sales from midnight to 7 a.m. on weekdays and all day Sunday. The district court sustained a demurrer and dismissed the action, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the county's police power under Article 12, section 2 of the Idaho Constitution, as it added limitations to state prohibitions without conflicting with them or being unreasonably discriminatory or effectively prohibitory. Drawing on precedents such as Clyde Hess Distributing Co. v. Bonneville County, the decision reasoned that the legislature had not fully occupied the field of regulating beer sales hours, allowing counties to impose additional reasonable restrictions outside incorporated municipalities.

business & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between owners of adjoining lands along Pocatello Creek, where the upstream defendants allegedly filled in the stream bed in 1949, obstructing water flow and causing damage to the downstream plaintiff's pasture, alfalfa hay, and grain crops during the 1950-1953 irrigation seasons. The plaintiff sued for damages to property, crops, and the stream bed itself, and a jury awarded a total of $3,666.66. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for a new trial unless the plaintiff accepted a reduced judgment of $1,000, citing insufficient evidence to support the verdict and excessive damages. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial judge acted within his discretion given conflicts in the evidence about water flow and obstructions, lack of mitigation efforts by the plaintiff, and missing details on harvest costs or market value; the court also noted it could not resolve statute of limitations issues due to an incomplete record but found the amendment to the new trial motion permissible. The topics are property, torts & liability, and procedure.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff who obtained a default judgment for $7,578.50 against an insurance company after serving the complaint on the Idaho commissioner of insurance; the company failed to respond timely due to internal officer changes, office moves between states, and resulting record confusion. The defendant later moved under I.C. § 5-905 to set aside the default on grounds of excusable neglect, supported by affidavits detailing the disruptions and a court-ordered rehabilitation that enjoined the company from transacting business. The trial court granted the motion after finding the neglect excusable. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the trial court acted within its discretion, especially given the injunction period that overlapped with the response deadline.

procedure

The case consolidated five actions concerning rights to water from Thomas Fork Creek carried through the Circle Ditch and related ditch easement issues on lands in Thomas Creek Valley. Respondent Linford, who holds a decreed right to 590 inches of water, sued to enjoin interference with the ditch and quiet title to the water; appellants (various Halls) counterclaimed for a claimed 60 inches of water based on an alleged 1888 agreement or prescription, and sought damages for Linford's removal of a headgate and for deepening and widening the ditch with resulting spoil piles on their properties. The court ruled that no such agreement or prescriptive right existed, the 1902 decree supported Linford's water rights, and appellants had no claim for lost water use, but that the ditch work exceeded the scope of the easement and caused compensable damage to the servient lands. It therefore affirmed the decree on water rights and related claims but reversed and remanded solely on the issue of damages to be determined from the record or additional evidence.

propertytorts & liability

The case involved a dispute over a written lease agreement in which plaintiff Thomas leased a truck tractor and semi-trailer, along with his services as driver, to defendants operating as Bannock Steel and Tank Co. for a 30-month term at a per-mile rate plus loading fees. After defendants ceased using the equipment and services in May 1954 without further payment, Thomas sued for breach of contract seeking $27,000 in lost profits and wages. The trial court sustained defendants' general and special demurrers without leave to amend and dismissed the action. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because the lease imposed no obligation on defendants to use the equipment or services at any time or to any extent, rendering any promise illusory and the contract lacking mutuality of obligation where it remained executory.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved defendant John D. McCallum, who was prosecuted for obtaining money under false pretenses after he solicited orders and payments from customers including the Schurgers for aluminum shingles by falsely claiming to be the president of a manufacturing company that produced and would promptly deliver the products. The trial court convicted McCallum based on evidence that no such company existed, no shingles were delivered, and similar transactions with other victims followed the same pattern of non-delivery and non-refund. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that testimony about similar prior and subsequent acts was properly admitted to prove fraudulent intent as part of a scheme, and that the trial court did not err in denying a presentence investigation because no probation or sentence suspension had been requested.

criminal law

The case involved Louise Turner, a 75-year-old chambermaid terminated from her job at Boise Lodge No. 310 due to health issues preventing her from performing her duties. After receiving initial unemployment benefits, her renewed claim was denied by the Industrial Accident Board under Idaho Code § 72-1366(e), which requires claimants to be able to work, available for suitable work, and actively seeking employment. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the denial, finding substantial evidence that Turner was not able to work, and noting that her age and health conditions were relevant factors in this determination. The court also addressed procedural issues regarding the Board's composition but found no error.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerned the validity of a sheriff's foreclosure sale of two adjacent lots of real property in Burley, Idaho, which had buildings straddling the lot lines, along with the subsequent redemption of that property. Following a mortgage foreclosure by Gaskill against the Neals and judgment creditor Madsen, the lots were sold separately at auction for $201 each, after which Bernice Neal redeemed them for $426; the trial court later granted a motion to set aside both the sale and redemption and ordered a re-sale. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the lots should have been sold as one parcel because they were used as a single unit and no showing was made that separate sale was appropriate, resulting in grossly inadequate consideration that justified setting aside the proceedings.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a claim by Barbara Fuller against the estate of John B. Barthel for payment of approximately $2,000 for nursing care, errands, and related services she provided to him from 1950 until his death in 1953. After the claim was denied by the estate's executor, Fuller sued on theories of oral contract and quantum meruit; a jury awarded her the full amount, but she died before the appeal. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that a jury instruction erroneously required the defendant to rebut a presumption of an obligation to pay with clear and convincing evidence rather than a preponderance of the evidence. The court found the complaint adequately stated a claim against the executor in his representative capacity and that there was sufficient evidence to reach the jury, but the flawed instruction on the burden of proof required reversal.

procedure

The case involved a claim for workers' compensation benefits after Wayne A. Beebe, the manager of a nursing home operated by the Horton Nursing Home System, died in an airplane crash during a recreational flight with Robert Horton near the nursing home premises. The Industrial Accident Board awarded benefits, finding the death arose out of and in the course of employment given Beebe's 24-hour duties. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the award, holding that the flight was a personal activity unrelated to Beebe's managerial responsibilities, as the record showed no work-related purpose or necessity for the trip and the accident occurred off the employer's premises in a location where Beebe could not reasonably have been performing his duties. The court emphasized that compensation requires the injury to occur in the course of employment, not merely during the period of employment, citing prior precedents involving deviations from work duties.

labor & employment

This case involved a workers' compensation claim filed on behalf of the minor daughter of Eugene Devlin, who was fatally shot at his workplace by his employer, William Searles, before Searles killed himself. The Industrial Accident Board denied benefits, finding that the shooting stemmed from Searles' personal jealousy over a shared romantic interest and did not arise out of the employment, even though it occurred during work hours on the premises. The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed whether the death qualified under I.C. sec. 72-201, considering evidence of the men's relationship, the employer's possible mental state, and precedents on assaults by employers or coworkers. The majority affirmed the denial of compensation, holding that the motive was personal rather than employment-related. A dissent argued for reversal and remand to investigate the employer's sanity at the time of the shooting.

labor & employmentcriminal lawtorts & liability