The case involved Taniela Kivalu, a licensed practical nurse at Life Care Center of Boise, who was terminated after he pre-completed a deceased patient's medication chart with morphine doses that could not have been administered. Kivalu applied for unemployment insurance benefits, but they were denied on the ground that his discharge was for misconduct connected with his employment under Idaho Code § 72-1366(5). The Idaho Industrial Commission upheld the denial, finding that Kivalu had deliberately disregarded the employer's reasonable written policy requiring medications to be charted only as they are given, a policy aligned with state nursing regulations. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commission's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and that Kivalu's conscious violation of the expected standard of behavior disqualified him from benefits.
The case concerned challenges by county commissioners, voters, and legislators to Plan L97, a legislative redistricting plan adopted by Idaho's Commission for Reapportionment following the 2000 census. Petitioners argued that the plan violated the federal one-person, one-vote principle due to population deviations and also breached state constitutional and statutory rules on preserving county integrity and communities. The Idaho Supreme Court held that Plan L97 was constitutional, noting its maximum population deviation of 9.71 percent rendered it presumptively valid under federal precedent and that petitioners failed to show it was unconstitutional or that the Commission abused its discretion in balancing competing redistricting criteria.
The case involved Steven Kolar, an employee of an engineering firm injured on a road construction project maintained by Cassia County, Albion Highway District, and Burley Highway District, who sued the districts for negligence after receiving workers' compensation benefits from his employer. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding they qualified as Kolar's statutory employers under Idaho Code § 72-223 and were thus immune from tort suits under the workers' compensation exclusivity provisions. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the districts had jurisdiction to raise the defense in court and that their contractual role in the project made them statutory employers entitled to immunity. The court also rejected Kolar's equal protection and due process challenges to the statute, concluding the provisions were not irreconcilable and that legislative changes did not violate constitutional rights. The decision upheld the dismissal of the negligence claims.
The case involved residual beneficiaries of a trust suing an attorney and real estate broker who purchased trust property, alleging breach of fiduciary duties and negligence in the transaction. The district court dismissed the claims for lack of standing. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the direct fiduciary duty and negligence claims against the defendants but reversed on the claim that the purchasers obtained the property with knowledge of trustee impropriety, holding that beneficiaries have standing to sue third parties directly when their interests conflict with the trustees'. The reasoning centered on rules of standing and real parties in interest under Idaho law, distinguishing between claims against trustees' agents and claims against knowing participants in breaches.
The case involved Intermountain Eye & Laser Centers suing Dr. Mark Miller for allegedly breaching a non-compete clause in their 2000 Physician Employment Agreement after his termination in 2003, seeking either to bar his practice in Ada and Canyon Counties or to collect a $500,000 practice fee. The district court granted summary judgment to Dr. Miller, holding that the two-year non-compete period had expired with the agreement's end in 2001 or, alternatively, that the restriction was unreasonable and unenforceable. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court vacated the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings, reasoning that the non-compete provision could plausibly survive the contract's expiration depending on the parties' intent and subsequent conduct, that the shift to at-will employment raised unresolved factual questions about the clause's ongoing effect, and that reasonableness of the geographic and fee terms required additional evidence rather than resolution on summary judgment.
The case involved a dispute between the Adams and the Andersons over ownership of a small parcel of land between their adjoining residential lots in Ada County, Idaho. The Adams claimed title based on a 1982 Record of Survey that adjusted the boundary line from a prior sale, while the Andersons relied on their deed to Lot 3 which initially referenced the survey but was later altered. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Andersons, holding that the Record of Survey constituted a valid and properly recorded conveyance that provided constructive notice to subsequent purchasers. The court reasoned that the survey met statutory requirements for a conveyance, including signatures and property description, and that the Andersons had both actual and constructive knowledge of it, precluding them from being bona fide purchasers without notice.