Jim Jones

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.

labor & employment

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.

electionscivil rights

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.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

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.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

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.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

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.

property

The case involved Paul Frank, who was awarded partial permanent disability benefits after a 1980 mining injury at Bunker Hill Company and later sought to reopen his claim in 1991 for additional total disability due to a deteriorating condition plus an offset for medical expenses against prior overpayments. The Industrial Commission dismissed the request for additional disability benefits as barred by the statute of limitations under Idaho Code § 72-719, and the Supreme Court affirmed that dismissal while reversing on the offset and medical benefits issues because they had not been litigated or decided below. The court reasoned that the time bar applied to the redetermination request and remanded the undecided claims for further proceedings, also addressing procedural complications from bankruptcy stays and party substitutions without finding any basis for attorney fees.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved an insurance dispute arising from a fatal car accident in Montana, where the parents of the deceased child sought underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage under policies issued by Farmers entities in Idaho. After settling claims against the other driver and one insurer, the remaining insurer (FIE) sought to amend its Idaho declaratory judgment complaint to determine not only its liability but also the amount of any UIM damages owed. The district court permitted amendment on the liability question but denied it as to the amount of damages, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed that denial. The court reasoned that declaratory actions under Idaho law are suited to resolving legal rights and relations rather than factual damage calculations, which were already pending in a related Montana proceeding, and that the trial court had not abused its discretion in limiting the amendment.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved property owners suing the City of Pocatello to block extension of a public biking and walking path (the Portneuf Greenway) across a platted but unopened road and a private easement on their land; the City counterclaimed seeking authority to proceed. After partial summary judgment and a bench trial, the district court ruled for the City, allowing the extension on both the road and easement. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held the City could open the road for pedestrian and bicycle traffic because it remained public, the owners failed to prove adverse possession or estoppel, and the City could limit its use accordingly. However, the court reversed on the easement, ruling that converting it to public recreational path use would impermissibly expand its original limited purpose of access to adjacent city property.

propertyenvironment

In this worker’s compensation case, Gregorio Hernandez appealed an Industrial Commission order that set March 9, 1999, as the date he reached maximum medical improvement after a 1998 horseback-riding injury at work, thereby limiting his temporary income and medical benefits and denying attorney fees. The court held that the referee properly considered the MMI issue because Hernandez’s claim for continued temporary benefits necessarily required determining when his recovery period ended, and the parties received adequate notice consistent with due process and Idaho Code § 72-713. It further concluded that substantial evidence in the medical records, including notes on symptom magnification and inconsistent behaviors, supported the referee’s MMI finding and the surety’s denial of further benefits. The court affirmed the Commission’s order in full and declined to award appellate fees or sanctions, finding the appeal raised a legitimate though weak procedural question.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a contract dispute between ranch owners who hired an excavation company for water lines, troughs, and related work, after which the owners sued the company and its principals for breach and the company counterclaimed for unpaid compensation. Following a jury trial that found the owners breached and awarded the company a modest sum on its counterclaim while dismissing claims against individuals, the district court denied attorney fees and costs on the ground that no party prevailed. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that the defendants were prevailing parties entitled to fees under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1)(B) because the overall result of the action showed success on the primary claims and counterclaim. The court remanded for determination of an appropriate award under the rule's factors and also awarded fees on appeal.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a 1979 joint venture agreement between A & J Construction Co. and Floyd Wood for the purchase of Idaho real property known as the Sugar Beet Property. After A & J filed for bankruptcy in 1991 without disclosing its interest in the property or the joint venture, it later sued Wood for an accounting of sale proceeds and related claims. The district court granted Wood summary judgment on the basis of judicial estoppel, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that A & J had taken inconsistent positions by omitting the asset in bankruptcy proceedings and then asserting claims based on the undisclosed joint venture, thereby gaining an unfair advantage. The decision dismissed A & J's claims with prejudice.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, Alfred Hayward, as personal representative of his father's estate, sued a nursing home, its medical director Dr. Thurston, and Jack's Pharmacy (along with its pharmacists) for negligence allegedly causing the father's death from an injection of the drug Haldol while residing at the facility. The district court granted summary judgment to the pharmacy defendants and partially to Dr. Thurston, ruling that Hayward's experts failed to establish the applicable local standards of care for physicians in St. Maries and for dispensing pharmacies. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court vacated those rulings and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the experts' testimony was competent and admissible because it addressed the standard of care for Dr. Thurston in his role as medical director and sufficiently familiarized itself with the local pharmacy standards without requiring on-site visits. The court reasoned that questions of fact remained regarding breach once the experts' qualifications were properly considered under Idaho malpractice statutes.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a dispute between neighboring homeowners in a subdivision over whether a fence, storage shed, and RV storage complied with the subdivision's covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CCRs) and related rules. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no violations. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the decision regarding the fence and shed, as they had received proper approvals that were not appealed, but reversed on the RV, holding that it violated the CCRs by remaining visible from the street, a requirement not subject to discretionary board approval.

property

In Busse v. Busse, Jan Busse sought reinstatement of child support for her daughter Sarah, who had turned eighteen but was still attending high school, under Idaho Code § 32-706(2), after her ex-husband Michael had been relieved of support obligations by a prior stipulation. The magistrate court granted Michael's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the request was filed after Sarah's eighteenth birthday, and the district court affirmed. The Idaho Supreme Court vacated the dismissal and remanded, holding that the statute creates a right to seek support for a child continuing high school education up to age nineteen and contains no requirement that the request be made before the child turns eighteen. The Court reasoned that the statute's language using "subsequent to reaching the age of eighteen" expressly permits post-eighteenth-birthday applications, applies to existing support orders, and reflects a policy of encouraging high school completion without implied limitations on timing or prior decrees.

family lawprocedure

This case involved John and Jane Doe appealing the termination of their parental rights to their two children, a son born in 1997 with speech issues, ADHD, and Reactive Attachment Disorder who was removed from the home in 2000, and a daughter born in 1999 with developmental delays who was removed in 2001. The magistrate court found the parents had neglected the children under Idaho law due to unsanitary and unsafe living conditions, inadequate parenting, and failure to make sufficient improvements despite opportunities, and determined that termination was in the children's best interests based on evidence of their progress in foster care. The district court affirmed the order, and the Idaho Supreme Court upheld it on appeal, concluding that the magistrate's findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence and were not clearly erroneous.

family law

In State v. Korsen, the defendant was convicted of two counts of second-degree kidnapping, sentenced to prison terms, and ordered to pay restitution and court costs; he died by suicide while his appeal was pending. The Idaho Court of Appeals had granted a motion to abate all proceedings ab initio, but the Idaho Supreme Court reviewed and reversed that decision. The Court held that a defendant's death abates only the custody and incarceration provisions of the judgment, leaving the conviction and any restitution or court-cost orders intact. Its reasoning centered on statutory changes emphasizing victims' rights and the compensatory purpose of restitution, which requires a valid conviction and would be undermined by full abatement. The appeal was dismissed with the conviction and financial orders preserved.

criminal lawprocedure

The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare petitioned to establish a claim against the Estate of Joe Kaminsky for recovery of $54,067.59 in Medicaid benefits paid to the decedent before his 2000 death, with recovery to be deferred until after the death of his surviving spouse. The magistrate judge denied the petition as untimely under Idaho Code § 15-3-803 because it was filed more than two years after the decedent's death, and both the district court and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that even though the statute allows a claim to be "established" without immediate recovery from the estate, it must still be presented within the statutory time limits applicable to claims against estates. The court also awarded attorney fees to the estate under I.C. § 12-117, finding the Department's action lacked a reasonable basis in fact or law.

healthcareprocedure

This case involved parents who sued multiple health care providers after their child was born with severe defects and died shortly after birth, alleging that the providers negligently failed to diagnose the defects during pregnancy. The plaintiffs claimed this denied them the chance to terminate the pregnancy and asserted causes of action including negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Idaho Code § 5-334 expressly bars any cause of action based on the theory that the parents would have aborted the pregnancy but for the providers' negligence. The court reasoned that all of the plaintiffs' claims, including the emotional distress claim, were premised on this prohibited wrongful birth theory as alleged in the complaint. The court also upheld the denial of attorney fees to the defendants and denied fees on appeal to both sides.

healthcaretorts & liabilityfamily lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between brothers Mike and Ed Lettunich over the dissolution of their family cattle ranch limited partnership in Idaho after financial losses from flooding and poor business conditions led to a breakdown in their relationship. Mike filed an action to dissolve the partnership, and the parties entered a court-approved settlement agreement providing for winding up the business through a dispersing agent, with an option for Ed to purchase Mike's interest or liquidate assets. The district court oversaw multiple motions and hearings regarding the sale of partnership real estate to a third party, capital account settlements, and payment of obligations including a promissory note. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed most of the district court's orders enforcing the settlement and distributing assets but reversed the order charging Ed's capital account for a MetLife prepayment penalty and vacated and remanded the attorney fees award for further consideration of reasonableness.

business & regulatoryproperty