Charles F. McDevitt

This case arose in the Snake River Basin Adjudication (SRBA), where the Idaho Department of Water Resources submitted an Amended Director's Report for Basin 57 proposing general provisions on firefighting purposes, irrigation use (including early and late season), and conjunctive management for three test basins. Various irrigation districts and other parties appealed the SRBA district court's ruling that these general provisions were not necessary for defining the water rights or for their efficient administration and therefore would not be included in the decrees. The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed whether fixed periods or additional statements were required in the decrees, reasoning that the irrigation season could be decreed uniformly as a single period of use without general provisions, that irrigators determine need in the first instance, and that the Director of IDWR holds administrative authority to prevent waste and set seasonal limits annually through rules. The court affirmed the district court's decision to exclude the provisions (except for the conjunctive management issue, which was set for reargument).

propertyenvironmentprocedure

This case involved remaindermen suing a life tenant for waste after the tenant abandoned a residence, failed to repair a water pump, and allowed the yard's lawn, shrubs, and trees to die, causing $750 in damages as found by the jury. The life tenant raised counterclaims including fraud, undue influence, breach of contract, and constructive trust based on an alleged oral agreement about expenses during the life estate. The court affirmed that statutory waste claims under Idaho law extend to damage to lawns, trees, and shrubs as part of real property, upheld dismissal of certain counterclaims like constructive trust, and ruled there was no duty to repair the pump, but vacated dismissal of the fraud and mistake counterclaims on statute of limitations grounds due to factual disputes over discovery and remanded for further proceedings while vacating the attorney fee award.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case concerned a lender's attempt to foreclose on promissory notes, real estate mortgages, and security agreements executed by farm borrowers to secure operating loans, after the borrowers defaulted. The district court granted summary judgment to the borrowers, holding that the lender had not complied with federal restructuring requirements under the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 before initiating foreclosure. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that 12 U.S.C. § 2202a(b)(3) barred the lender from foreclosing or continuing foreclosure proceedings until it completed consideration of any pending restructure application, including one submitted after the initial notice but before foreclosure. The court rejected the lender's arguments that the application was untimely or that the statute did not apply, and it upheld the dismissal of the foreclosure action along with the award of attorney fees to the borrowers. The opinion also addressed related procedural and evidentiary issues but centered on the federal statutory bar to foreclosure.

business & regulatorypropertyfederal power

The case involved Gregory Ryan Curtis, who was convicted of misdemeanor driving while under the influence under I.C. § 18-8004. Curtis argued that the magistrate judge erred by refusing to instruct the jury on inattentive driving as a lesser included offense. The Idaho Supreme Court held that inattentive driving is not a lesser included offense of DUI under either the statutory theory or the pleading theory, because the offenses are not necessarily related by statute and the charging document did not allege facts that would make inattentive driving an element. The Court therefore affirmed the conviction, overruling prior inconsistent precedent.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a worker's compensation claim by Robert Combes against Yanke Machine Shop and the Industrial Special Indemnity Fund for respiratory problems he attributed to dust, pollen, and other exposures while operating heavy equipment. The Industrial Commission ruled that the cumulative exposure in the months before November 1992 qualified as an accident and apportioned liability to ISIF. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that the events did not satisfy the statutory definition of an accident under I.C. § 72-102(15)(b) as an unexpected, unlooked-for mishap reasonably located in time and place. The court explained that its prior decisions required evidence of a distinct new injury rather than gradual aggravation of a preexisting condition through repetitive exposure, and it declined to consider an unpreserved occupational-disease argument.

labor & employment

This case involved a teacher, Gary Loftus, who was suspended without pay by the Snake River School District after a confrontation with a student, leading to a wage claim lawsuit asserting that the district lacked authority to impose the suspension under Idaho Code sections governing teacher employment and wages. The magistrate court ruled for Loftus, but the district court reversed, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed that the school board had the power to suspend certificated personnel without pay. The core reasoning was that I.C. § 33-513 expressly authorizes suspension for violations of rules or conduct grounds, and the term 'suspend' includes temporary debarment from pay with no statutory limitations to the contrary. The court also awarded attorney fees to the district as the prevailing party under I.C. § 12-120(1) and noted that grievance procedures were not mandatory.

labor & employment