Robert E. Bakes

This case involved a dispute between property owner Wing and tenant Munns over an alleged oral lease allowing Munns to reside on Wing's land in his trailer for two years, with Munns counterclaiming for damages due to interference with his water supply. The trial court entered judgment for Munns on the counterclaim following a jury verdict, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the evidence insufficient to establish an enforceable oral lease. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed that reversal, holding that the claimed agreement was too indefinite as a matter of law because the parties never agreed on the amount or boundaries of the leased property. The Court concluded that such indefiniteness rendered the oral lease unenforceable, without needing to reach the statute of frauds issue. The judgment of the district court was reversed.

property

The case involved Maxwell Hoffman, who was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for his participation in the 1987 killing of Denise Williams, a confidential police informant targeted due to her role in a drug arrest. Hoffman appealed his conviction, death sentence, and the denial of post-conviction relief, raising issues including jury instructions on reasonable doubt, consideration of mitigating factors at sentencing, and requirements for mental health evaluations. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the trial court properly instructed the jury, that Hoffman failed to present certain mitigating evidence, and that no statutory or constitutional errors warranted reversal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Charles A. Beloit's appeal from a felony DUI conviction under Idaho Code §§ 18-8004 and 18-8005(3), which was enhanced from a misdemeanor based on three prior DUI convictions. Beloit challenged the validity of two Nez Perce County convictions, claiming he had not knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional rights to counsel and other protections when entering guilty pleas. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the felony conviction, ruling that certified copies of the judgments and transcripts established a prima facie case of validity for at least one prior conviction, shifting the burden to Beloit to produce evidence of a constitutional defect, which he did not do. The court applied U.S. Supreme Court precedent from Parke v. Raley and Burgett v. Texas to uphold the enhancement using the valid prior conviction alongside an uncontested one from Kootenai County.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Dennis and Joni Rath suing Managed Health Network for damages due to denial of coverage under an insurance contract for mental health services for their son. The trial court stayed the lawsuit and ordered arbitration on the coverage issue pursuant to a clause in the Group Services Agreement between MHN, First Interstate Bancorp, and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that the arbitration provision did not apply to the Raths because they were not parties to the Agreement but rather covered enrollees, and the clause explicitly limited arbitration to controversies between the parties. The court determined the contract was unambiguous after reviewing it as a whole, with signatories being the only parties bound by the arbitration terms.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by the Doty family against the Bisharas, who sold them a used Blazer after mounting its tires, and the tire manufacturer Kelly-Springfield, following a highway accident in which tire blowouts caused severe injuries to the Dotys and the death of one family member. The Dotys settled with Kelly-Springfield through a covenant not to execute for $500,000 while keeping the manufacturer in the case, and the trial court refused the Bisharas' request for a strict liability jury instruction against Kelly-Springfield, declined to dismiss the manufacturer or inform the jury of the settlement, and admitted certain expert evidence. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the judgment attributing 100% liability to the Bisharas and remanded for a new trial, reasoning that the Bisharas had presented sufficient evidence of a manufacturing defect to warrant a strict liability instruction and that the settlement altered the parties' incentives in litigating the manufacturer's responsibility.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Orr, Dennis Orr was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and related sentence enhancements for shooting and killing Joe Tucker during a trip to Idaho. Orr appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial, raising claims including that a firearm enhancement was not properly raised at the preliminary hearing, that the information and plea were not read to the jury after empanelment, that certain jury instructions were improper, and that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing and denying a Rule 35 motion. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that Orr had waived the procedural objections by failing to raise them timely in the trial court as required by court rules and precedent, that the jury instructions contained no error, and that there was no abuse of discretion in the sentencing decision.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Intermountain Construction suing the City of Ammon after a city employee misquoted building permit fees for two school projects, leading the company to pay higher fees than quoted and seek recovery on theories of negligent misrepresentation and estoppel. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the Idaho Tort Claims Act, I.C. § 6-904(3), grants governmental immunity from liability for claims arising out of misrepresentation by government employees, and that this immunity applied regardless of the legal theory asserted or the city's failure to plead it as an affirmative defense. The court further reasoned that negligent misrepresentation is not a recognized tort in Idaho outside narrow professional contexts, and that estoppel does not overcome the statutory immunity or apply to governmental functions like issuing permits under a building code.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a volunteer firefighter who sought workers' compensation benefits after being injured in a car accident while traveling to a required EMT training course. The Industrial Commission determined that the injury was compensable under the special errand exception to the going-and-coming rule but denied the claimant's request for attorney fees, finding that the employer's surety had not defended the claim unreasonably. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the denial of attorney fees, holding that the decision rested with the Commission and was supported by substantial evidence given the unsettled nature of the applicable legal test and the mixed factors involved.

labor & employment

This case involved the revocation of Charles Russell's probation after he pleaded guilty to obliterating vehicle identification numbers on snowmobiles and received a suspended sentence. The district court imposed a probation condition barring Russell from contacting his wife in any fashion; he violated it by having his stepfather call her about personal matters and by entering her garage to retrieve belongings. The trial court revoked probation, the Court of Appeals reversed on grounds that the no-contact condition was unreasonable, and the Idaho Supreme Court granted review. The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals decision, holding that Russell had not preserved his reasonableness challenge by raising it in the trial court and that the revocation was within the trial court's discretion based on the proven violations. The Court affirmed the district court's order revoking probation and denying the Rule 35 motion.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved landowners claiming that flooding of their Mud Lake property in 1984 and 1985 by state water agencies and flood control entities amounted to a taking under Article 1, § 14 of the Idaho Constitution, supporting an inverse condemnation claim after prior tort claims were dismissed. The trial court granted summary judgment to the respondents, striking the plaintiffs' opposing affidavit and finding no qualifying taking. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the flooding resulted from record-high, statistically rare water discharges that were unavoidable given available facilities and were not caused by the agencies' actions, as established by expert evidence, and that neither the "frequent and inevitably recurring inundation" nor alternative future-probability tests were satisfied. The court also upheld the award of discretionary costs but denied attorney fees on appeal.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Evan Koller, who was convicted in magistrate court of the misdemeanor of outfitting without a license under Idaho's Outfitters and Guides Act after an undercover agent paid him to guide a deer hunt that began in Utah and continued onto Koller's property in Idaho. Koller appealed, arguing that the Act does not apply to activities on private land, that it violates equal protection and due process, and that he was entrapped. The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the conviction, holding that the Act's declaration of policy demonstrates a legislative intent to regulate commercial outfitting on both public and private land as a valid exercise of the state's police power to protect health, safety, and welfare while regulating fish and game resources. The court further found that the distinction between commercial and noncommercial outfitting satisfies rational basis review and that no entrapment occurred.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryenvironment

This case involves a dispute between divorced parents Verna Harrah Levin and Dr. Donald Levin over modifying the custody and child support arrangements for their minor daughter Samantha following their 1986 divorce. The mother sought primary physical custody, citing her health issues, the child's age and schooling needs, and other factors, while offering financial incentives to the father; the father opposed the change and requested higher support payments. The magistrate court denied the custody modification after finding no permanent material change in circumstances that would serve the child's best interests, but increased child support from $1,000 to $10,000 per month retroactively and awarded attorney fees to the father. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, emphasizing the trial court's discretion in custody matters, the moving party's burden of proof, and the paramount importance of the child's best interests over other considerations like lifestyle or resources.

family law

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by Katherine Huffaker, who suffered a back injury at Red Lion Motor Inn-Riverside and was later found totally and permanently disabled; the employer and its surety sought to allocate part of the liability to the Idaho Industrial Special Indemnity Fund based on her borderline intellectual functioning as a pre-existing permanent physical impairment. The Industrial Commission dismissed the Fund, ruling that Huffaker's cognitive issues did not qualify as such an impairment under I.C. § 72-332, leaving full liability on the employer. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court first held that the employer's challenge was not mooted by a settlement with the claimant, as statutes permit the employer to seek review of the Fund's non-liability regardless of the claimant's participation. The Court then affirmed the Commission's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial competent evidence from medical experts who found no identifiable organic brain syndrome or other qualifying impairment. The ruling addressed both procedural rights to appeal and the evidentiary standard for triggering Fund liability in total disability cases.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case arose from the rescission of a contract for the sale of a motel, where the trial court entered judgment awarding restitution to the buyer defendants, including an escrow deposit fee. The Idaho Supreme Court first addressed the timeliness of the seller's appeal, holding that the Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend was timely because it was served within fourteen days of judgment even though filed later, thereby extending the appeal period under appellate rules. On the merits, the court vacated the portion of the judgment awarding $1,253 for the escrow fee because the buyers paid it to the escrow company rather than the seller and no evidence showed the seller controlled or received the funds. The matter was remanded for entry of a reduced judgment amount.

propertyprocedure

Basterrechea Distributing, Inc. and its insurer Unigard sued Idaho State Bank after the bank honored dozens of forged checks drawn on Basterrechea’s account, seeking recovery for losses that Unigard had partially covered. A jury found the bank liable on only one check for $2,798.34 and the trial court entered judgment accordingly; both sides appealed, challenging jury instructions and the interpretation of the special verdict. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the given instructions adequately covered the relevant UCC rules on customer duties and bank ordinary care, and that the verdict could be reconciled consistently with the evidence showing the bank failed to exercise ordinary care on only one item. The court also awarded appellate attorney fees to the bank as the prevailing party under Idaho Code § 12-120(3).

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a dispute over possession of a 1200-acre farm after Gem Mountain Farms defaulted on a mortgage held by Farm Credit Bank of Spokane (FCB), which took a deed in lieu of foreclosure and assigned the lessor's interest in an existing lease to the Wissels; FCB then sold the property to the Ketterlings with a warranty of possession after the lease expired on November 30, 1989. Despite the Wissels' prior written acknowledgment that the lease would end and they would vacate, they refused to surrender the property, prompting FCB and the Ketterlings to sue for possession, limited pre-expiration access, injunctive relief, and conditional damages, while the Wissels counterclaimed for continued possession and damages. The trial court denied a preliminary injunction but granted the plaintiffs partial summary judgment for possession, after which the parties stipulated to dismiss the remaining damage claims without addressing fees. Both sides then sought costs and attorney fees, but the trial court found no prevailing party under I.R.C.P. 54(d)(1)(B) because each had succeeded on some issues, and denied all requests. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, upholding the trial court's discretion to apportion outcomes when multiple claims and partial successes exist and rejecting additional statutory fee claims not raised below.

propertyprocedure

This case is a second appeal in a divorce action between Charles and Isabel Swope regarding the division of property interests in a bottling company that was Charles's separate property at marriage. The magistrate court found no community interest in partnership retained earnings but awarded Isabel half of corporate retained earnings, a ruling the district court partially reversed by also awarding her half of the partnership earnings valued at $65,765. The core issue on appeal concerns whether community funds used to pay taxes on undistributed earnings enhanced the value of the separate property business, entitling the community to a share of sale proceeds and interest, with expert testimony indicating retained earnings could not be traced to any specific increase in value.

family lawproperty

The case concerned whether the Boise Central Trades & Labor Council qualified for a real and personal property tax exemption on the Boise Labor Temple under I.C. § 63-105C as a fraternal organization. The Ada County Board of Equalization denied the exemption for tax years 1987 and 1988 after portions of the property were rented to a life insurance company and a credit union. The district court granted the exemption, but the Idaho Supreme Court held that while the Labor Council is a fraternal organization, the property was not used exclusively for fraternal purposes due to the commercial rentals. The court therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for findings on the percentage of the property that remained exempt. It also affirmed denial of attorney fees because no required demand letter had been sent under I.C. § 12-120(1).

taxespropertylabor & employment

In State v. Doyle, the defendant was charged with felony child custody interference under Idaho law after he failed to return his child to the mother following a temporary custody exchange in Oregon, despite an Idaho court order governing custody between the parents who had previously lived in Idaho. Doyle moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that no criminal acts occurred within Idaho since he, the child, and the mother were all outside the state at the time of the withholding. The trial court denied the motion, and after Doyle entered a conditional guilty plea, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that jurisdiction existed under I.C. § 19-302 because the offense, though commenced outside the state, was consummated within Idaho where the effects of the custody interference were felt by the mother and the underlying custody order originated. The court reasoned that the crime of child custody interference is an omission committed against the other parent and is akin to nonsupport, allowing Idaho to prosecute when the result occurs within its borders.

criminal lawfamily law

In State v. Tolman, the defendant was convicted of two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct and one count of sexual abuse involving three boys under age sixteen, and he appealed those convictions plus the denial of his motion to reduce his concurrent sentences. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in denying a mistrial after a juror belatedly disclosed his wife's childhood abuse (as there was no basis for a for-cause challenge), admitting evidence of prior uncharged sexual acts with the victims to show a common scheme or plan, permitting written juror questions to witnesses, excluding evidence of the defendant's prior acquittal on a related charge, refusing to sever the counts, and declining to reduce the sentence. The court's reasoning emphasized deference to trial court discretion on evidentiary and procedural matters, the lack of demonstrated prejudice to the defendant, and the curative effect of jury instructions where applicable.

criminal lawprocedure