Wayne L. Kidwell

This case involved a dispute between an employee, Shannon Bakker, and her employer, Thunder Spring-Wareham, LLC, over entitlement to a sales commission for marketing a condominium unit. The employment contract provided for a monthly salary plus a 0.25% override on successful closings, but expressly conditioned the commission on the employee's term of employment. After Bakker's employment ended on April 6, 2002, and escrow closed on April 15, 2002, Thunder Spring refused payment, leading to claims for contractual wages, statutory wages under the Idaho Wage Claim Act, and quantum meruit. The district court granted summary judgment to Thunder Spring, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the contract was unambiguous in requiring employment at closing, that the condition did not violate public policy or render the agreement unconscionable, and that the express contract barred the quantum meruit claim.

labor & employment

In Page v. McCain Foods, Inc., a workers' compensation claimant sought benefits after injuring her knee when she stood up from a chair at work, an event her employer learned about through an oral phone call but for which no written notice was provided. The Idaho Industrial Commission denied the claim, ruling that the incident did not qualify as an accident under the law and that the lack of proper notice prejudiced the employer. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that the employer's actual knowledge of the event satisfied notice requirements because it allowed an opportunity to investigate, and that an injury from rising from a seated position can constitute an accident when it arises out of and in the course of employment. The court remanded the case for further proceedings on unresolved issues, including causation and benefits, while directing that any attorney fee determination be made by the Commission.

labor & employment

This case involved a breach of contract claim by Clear Lakes Trout Co. against Clear Springs Foods, Inc., both operators of fish hatcheries with adjudicated water rights from springs in the Snake River Canyon. The dispute centered on whether Springs violated the Safe Harbor provision of an Interim Stipulated Agreement—negotiated amid drought-related water shortages—by requesting curtailment of Lakes' junior surface water rights to satisfy its own senior rights. The district court granted summary judgment to Springs, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Agreement's protections applied only to junior ground water users who supplied replacement water in exchange for immunity from calls by senior surface users, not to disputes between surface water right holders like Lakes and Springs. The court reasoned that the Agreement's structure and purpose, including specific commitments by ground water users, demonstrated an intent to exclude protection for junior surface rights holders.

propertyenvironmentbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a foreclosure action on undeveloped land and common areas within a planned condominium development along Coeur d'Alene Lake in Idaho, where the lender (West Wood Investments) sought to enforce a deed of trust after the developer defaulted, and lot owners claimed superior interests based on the developer's prior representations that certain property would remain common area. The district court granted foreclosure but held that equitable servitudes had been created and would run with the property. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the developer's recorded plans, representations to purchasers, and the overall circumstances of the project established enforceable equitable servitudes under Idaho law that were not extinguished by the foreclosure. The court distinguished prior precedent involving mere security interests without such representations or development context.

property

This case involved a dispute over a contract for the sale of landlocked real property, where the seller, the Hazel Blessinger Family Trust, was required to obtain and convey an easement for access as a condition of the sale. The buyers, the Denglers, sued for breach of contract after the Trust sold the property to another party, claiming the agreement remained enforceable. The district court granted summary judgment to the Trust, finding that the failure to obtain the easement excused the seller's performance because it was a condition precedent that could not be satisfied despite reasonable efforts. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed this decision, holding that the contract terms made the sale contingent on acquiring the easement on reasonable terms from neighboring landowners, which proved impossible.

property

The case concerned the Scaggs' attempt to recover attorney fees from their insurer, Mutual of Enumclaw, after an arbitration award on an underinsured motorist claim under Idaho Code § 41-1839. The district court initially denied fees in an October 10, 2002 order, applying precedent that required the insured to have no option but to file suit. After the Idaho Supreme Court issued Martin v. State Farm, which overruled that precedent, the district court granted a second motion and retroactively awarded fees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the October 10 order was a final judgment and the district court lacked jurisdiction to modify it via reconsideration or Rule 60(b) after the 42-day appeal period under I.A.R. 14 had expired.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether an officer's use of a spotlight on a parked vehicle during a nighttime encounter constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, which would require reasonable suspicion to justify detaining the driver, Baker, who was later charged with cocaine possession after the officer detected marijuana odor. The Idaho Supreme Court held that the spotlight did not amount to a show of authority creating a detention, reversing the district court's suppression order. The court reasoned that, under the totality of the circumstances and an objective test, a reasonable person would not believe they were not free to leave solely from the spotlight's use for illumination, distinguishing it from overhead lights or other coercive signals. The decision denied the motion to suppress and remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawcivil rights

In Porter v. Board of Trustees, part-time school bus drivers sued the Preston School District Board of Trustees claiming entitlement to paid sick leave benefits under Idaho Code § 33-1216(a). The district court granted summary judgment to the drivers after finding the statute unambiguous, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the statute's plain language requires every certificated and noncertificated employee to receive one day of sick leave with full pay for each month of service, or major portion thereof, as projected for the employment year. The Board had argued the statute was ambiguous and did not cover employees working fewer than twenty hours per week, but the court rejected that interpretation based on the text's reference to all employees.

labor & employment

Michael Rosenberger sued Trooper Stemm and Deputy Mumford under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging they used excessive force when arresting him during a civil disturbance in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, by employing a double arm-bar takedown that caused injury. The district court denied the officers summary judgment on the federal claims after finding they were not entitled to qualified immunity. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because existing law did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful: Rosenberger had approached the officers aggressively amid a hostile crowd, ignored repeated warnings to leave or face arrest, pulled away when they reached for him, and was later convicted of resisting or obstructing officers.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

In Smith v. Mitton, a city employee sued the City of Burley and its officials for wrongful discharge after being terminated following complaints about the city's health insurance plan and the legality of electrical work on a municipal project. The employee asserted claims under the Idaho Whistleblower Act and a public policy exception to at-will employment, though he abandoned tort and individual-defendant claims before trial. A jury found for the employee on the whistleblower and public-policy claims, and the district court denied the city's motion for directed verdict while awarding adjusted costs and attorney fees. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that reasonable minds could support the verdict, the jury instructions were proper or constituted harmless error, and the fee allocation was within the trial court's discretion given the parties' partial successes.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned Richard Hoyle, who was charged with racketeering under Idaho law based on alleged predicate acts connected to his insurance agency operations and accounting practices. After a jury acquitted Hoyle on two counts and 23 predicate acts but could not reach a verdict on seven remaining predicate acts under the racketeering count, the district court denied his motion for judgment of acquittal, declared a mistrial on that count, and later dismissed the case without prejudice when the state elected to pursue separate charges instead of retrying it. Hoyle appealed, arguing among other things that the jury's notations amounted to a not guilty verdict and that retrial was barred. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court's rulings, holding that the appeal on suppression issues was moot, that the jury had not returned a unanimous verdict on the racketeering charge, and that the motion for acquittal was properly denied under applicable standards for sufficiency of the evidence and verdict construction. A dissent on rehearing argued that constitutional standards required construing the verdict as an acquittal.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between owners of adjacent subdivisions over the width of a deeded easement for ingress and egress along Ruud Road, where the Boozers placed barriers that narrowed the usable road surface and limited access to the Quaker Haven subdivision. The Quaker Haven Owners sued to define and fix the easement width, and the Boozers counterclaimed for an injunction against widening beyond the original grant plus contribution for maintenance. After trial, the district court fixed the easement at 24 feet total width near the intersection based on historical use to provide reasonable access, denied the counterclaim for contributions, granted a preliminary injunction, and awarded attorney fees. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the easement width determination and related rulings as supported by substantial competent evidence of past road use and conditions, but reversed the attorney fees award because the cited procedural rule and statute do not authorize fees for defending a single motion rather than an entire case.

property

This case centered on a property boundary dispute where the Andersons and Goodliffe disagreed on the location of a fence that had stood for years, leading Goodliffe to rent a bulldozer and remove it, damaging the Andersons' property and personal items. The Andersons sued for quiet title, trespass, negligence, emotional distress, and attorney fees. The district court quieted title in the Andersons' favor, awarded damages for trespass and negligence plus emotional distress, but denied attorney fees; on appeal the Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that fees were unavailable under I.C. § 12-120(1) because the demand exceeded $25,000 and unwarranted under I.C. § 12-121 because the defense was not frivolous.

propertytorts & liability

This case involved a dispute over a state contract for replacing the turf at Boise State University's Bronco Stadium. Fieldturf, Inc., one of two bidders, sued the Idaho Department of Administration after its bid was rejected as nonresponsive for failing to properly price two optional alternatives as required by the bid instructions; Fieldturf argued it was the lowest bidder and that the bid invitation improperly required bids on a patented product in violation of I.C. § 67-2309. The district court granted summary judgment to the state. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed on alternative grounds, holding that Fieldturf had waived any challenge by failing to follow the bidding documents' procedures for reporting errors or ambiguities in advance and by not pursuing the statutory appeal process under I.C. § 67-5733.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a 1996 car accident in which the Bolls, insured by State Farm, incurred medical expenses paid by State Farm under their policy; State Farm then asserted a subrogation interest against the at-fault driver's insurer. After the Bolls' attorney negotiated a settlement that included repayment of State Farm's subrogation claim, the Bolls sued State Farm for breach of contract and sought to recover a share of their attorney fees and costs under the common fund doctrine. A jury found no breach of contract or implied covenant of good faith, but the district court applied the common fund doctrine to award the Bolls a portion of collection expenses. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the jury verdict on the contract claim and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees under the equitable doctrine or in denying further attorney fees. The court also ruled that neither party was entitled to attorney fees on appeal.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In State v. Morton, the defendant was convicted of possessing sexually exploitative material for non-commercial purposes under Idaho Code §§ 18-1507 and 18-1507A and challenged the statute's constitutionality, arguing that the definition of "erotic nudity" was unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute is not facially overbroad. The court reasoned that the statute's requirements—limiting prohibited material to depictions of children in explicit sexual conduct for the purpose of sexual gratification, combined with a scienter element—sufficiently narrow its scope to target only unprotected child pornography without reaching a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct, such as family or artistic depictions of nudity.

criminal lawfree speech

In State v. Fisher, the defendant was convicted of felony possession of methamphetamine and trafficking by attempted manufacture after police searches uncovered drugs and manufacturing materials on his property, following an initial search warrant based on a confidential informant's statements and other testimony. Fisher moved to suppress the evidence, alleging the warrant affidavit contained false statements made knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth, and sought a Franks hearing along with disclosure of the informant's identity. The district court initially granted a Franks hearing but, after an ex parte in-camera review, denied it; Fisher then entered a conditional guilty plea preserving his right to appeal the denial. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that Fisher failed to make the required preliminary showing for a Franks hearing, rendering any procedural error in the ex parte hearing harmless, and that the state was not required to cross-appeal an earlier order. The decision rested on the principle that appellate review defers to the magistrate's probable cause determination and that the district court reached the correct result despite using an erroneous process.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned Magic Valley Sand and Gravel's challenge to zoning ordinances adopted by the City of Burley and Cassia County that imposed residential zoning on the company's parcels in the city's area of impact, preventing its sand and gravel mining operations. The district court invalidated the ordinances for violating the Idaho Constitution and the Local Land Use Planning Act because they permitted the city to unilaterally control zoning without required parallel county action. Magic Valley prevailed on the merits and sought attorney fees under Idaho Code § 12-117, which the district court denied on reconsideration. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that the County lacked a reasonable basis in fact or law when enacting the ordinances and thus ordering the district court to award fees to Magic Valley as the prevailing party.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Nerco Minerals Company suing Morrison Knudsen Corporation for breach of contract, professional malpractice, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and fraudulent misrepresentation arising from MK's engineering reports and designs for a heap leach pad at Nerco's mine, which failed in 1990. The district court granted summary judgment to MK on all claims except breach of contract, and later on the remaining claim as well. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the tort and fraud claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. The court reasoned that Nerco knew or should have known of the alleged defects by January 1990 when the pad failed or by July 1990 upon receiving investigative reports, and that even accounting for the parties' tolling agreement, the 1996 filing was untimely.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a challenge to the award of a public construction contract for renovating Idaho State University's Physical Science Building, where SE/Z Construction sued to enjoin the award to Harris Brothers and sought damages after the state determined Harris was the low responsible bidder. SE/Z argued that the bidding documents prohibited considering unit prices for optional classroom audio-visual packages when calculating the lowest bid, and that only the base bid plus accepted alternates should be used. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the bid documents expressly permitted the state to factor in the unit prices for the number of packages it could afford, that this process complied with Idaho Code sections governing public bidding, and that SE/Z lacked a protected property interest for its constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court rejected the contention that the evaluation method gave the state improper discretion or violated statutory requirements.

business & regulatoryprocedure