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

This case involved an appeal by Mark Loosli from a trial court's denial of his motion to suppress statements he made during a police interview, in which he admitted to sexual conduct with minors. Loosli argued that the interview was a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings, which were not given, and that officers' statements, including references to God, his daughters, and potential suicide, rendered his admissions involuntary. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that the questioning did not constitute custodial interrogation because Loosli had voluntarily agreed to the interview, was repeatedly told he was free to leave and would not be arrested that day, and in fact returned home afterward. The court also found the statements voluntary under the totality of the circumstances, noting the short duration of questioning, Loosli's maturity, and the lack of overbearing conduct by officers, consistent with precedents like Oregon v. Mathiason and State v. Troy.

criminal lawprocedure

In Anson v. Les Bois Race Track, Inc., horse owners sued a race track for negligence in supervising employees and training their horse, which resulted in injury to the animal while using starting gates. The district court granted summary judgment to the track based on a release of liability signed by the owners, finding adequate consideration from allowing the horse on the premises and no economic duress. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the judgment because the owners failed to provide argument or authority supporting the preserved issues of consideration and duress, waiving those claims, and awarded attorney fees to the track as the appeal was frivolous.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerned a dispute between divorced parents over which court—Idaho or Florida—should exercise jurisdiction to modify an existing child custody decree originally entered in Idaho under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA). After the father filed a motion in Idaho to retain jurisdiction and the mother initiated parallel proceedings in Florida, the Idaho magistrate judge ruled that Idaho retained continuing jurisdiction to decide custody matters. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the state issuing the original decree maintains authority to modify it when one parent still resides there, that the Florida court should have communicated with Idaho before proceeding, and that the applicable UCCJA provisions (I.C. § 32-1114) required deference to Idaho’s ongoing jurisdiction rather than a stay or transfer. The decision rested on the facts that the child had significant ties to Idaho, the father resided there, and no prior Idaho court had declined jurisdiction.

family lawprocedure

The case involved the Idaho State Insurance Fund seeking reimbursement from employee Gregg Turner for workers' compensation benefits paid after a work-related motor vehicle accident caused by an uninsured driver, where Turner had also recovered uninsured motorist benefits from his employer's insurer. The Fund claimed a subrogation right under I.C. § 72-223 and sued in district court. The district court granted summary judgment to Turner, ruling that the Fund had no subrogation claim against the uninsured motorist policy. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the subrogation issue, as I.C. § 72-707 vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Industrial Commission for all questions arising under the workers' compensation law, consistent with prior precedent. The court reversed the district court's decision and remanded for dismissal of the complaint.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a petition for post-conviction relief filed by Max Butler after his conviction for aggravated assault, a felony, based on using his hands to choke his former girlfriend while threatening to kill her. Butler argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because hands could not be a deadly weapon under Idaho Code § 18-905(a), rendering the offense a misdemeanor, and that his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise the issue on direct appeal. The court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, ruling that Butler had forfeited the claim by not raising it on direct appeal under I.C. § 19-4901(b) and that counsel's performance was not deficient because precedent at the time treated whether an instrumentality was a deadly weapon as a fact-sensitive question for the jury. The decision noted that a subsequent case had clarified that a deadly weapon must be apart from the human body, but this did not retroactively support the ineffective-assistance claim or overcome the procedural bar.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Marcus Mathews, an enrolled member of the Nez Perce Tribe, who was charged with first-degree murder and sought to suppress evidence obtained from searches of his and his relatives' homes on the Nez Perce Indian Reservation. State officers executed search warrants issued by state magistrates without obtaining prior approval from the tribal court as required by tribal code, and one warrant lacked a magistrate's signature at the time of execution. Mathews argued that state jurisdiction was barred by tribal sovereignty, federal plenary power over Indian affairs, and preemptive federal law, while also challenging the unsigned warrant's validity in post-conviction proceedings. The court determined that the signature requirement is procedural rather than substantive and that the warrant was supported by probable cause, and it analyzed the jurisdictional issues under established precedents on state authority in Indian country. The decision addressed both the suppression motion and the post-conviction relief petition.

criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

This case involved real estate buyers who purchased acreage in Idaho after their agent represented there were no unusual building restrictions, only to later discover the land was in a floodplain district that imposed additional requirements and costs. The buyers sued the sellers, the real estate firm, and the agent for breach of fiduciary duty and related claims, alleging nondisclosure of the floodplain status and misleading statements about zoning and restrictions. After a bench trial, the district court found liability and awarded damages to the buyers. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the finding of liability but reversed portions of the damages award, holding that awards for a special septic system and certain engineering fees lacked sufficient evidentiary support, and remanded for recalculation of damages consistent with the opinion.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case concerned a claim for worker’s compensation benefits against the Industrial Special Indemnity Fund (ISIF) by Kevin Jackman, who had suffered a work-related injury leading to multiple hip surgeries and eventual total permanent disability. The Industrial Commission found Jackman entitled to benefits from ISIF, but the Idaho Supreme Court reversed that decision. The court held that Jackman’s claim was barred by collateral estoppel because a prior lump sum settlement agreement with his employer, approved by the Commission, had already determined his impairment rating at 33% of the whole person, and he could not relitigate the apportionment of that impairment to seek additional benefits from ISIF. The court reasoned that the approved agreement constituted a final judgment on the merits regarding the impairment issue, preventing relitigation even though ISIF was not a party to the agreement.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Judith Rita Evans, who was charged with grand theft for allegedly taking over $300 in coins from laundromat machines at her workplace over several months in 1994. A jury convicted her after hearing evidence of revenue shortages matching her shifts, surveillance showing her removing coins without authorization, and marked coins found in her possession. Evans appealed, arguing that business records documenting the shortages were improperly admitted as hearsay and that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the records met the requirements of the business records exception and that substantial competent evidence allowed a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a teacher, Julia Hunting, who sued the Clark County School District for breach of her one-year employment contract after the district eliminated her home economics position due to budget and enrollment issues and failed to renew her for the following year. Hunting alleged violations of the district's reduction-in-force policy and the contractual requirement in the Professional Agreement (incorporated into her contract) to provide written notice of nonrenewal by May 15. The district court granted summary judgment to the school district, but the Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that the May 15 notification deadline was enforceable because it did not conflict with the statutory June 15 deadline and the district had authority under state law to negotiate such terms. The court remanded for further proceedings on whether the district complied with its own policies.

labor & employment

This case involved a worker's compensation claim by Robert Kitchen against his former employer Tidyman Foods for medical treatment of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, which he developed while working in meat-cutting positions involving repetitive wrist movements. The Industrial Commission denied benefits, finding that Kitchen was not disabled under Idaho law because he continued to perform his job duties without taking time off. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that "disablement" requires the employee to become actually and totally incapacitated from performing the work, and Kitchen's ability to continue working despite symptoms meant he did not meet this standard during his employment with Tidyman.

labor & employment

In State v. Oar, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of sexual battery of minor children aged sixteen or seventeen under Idaho Code § 18-1508A, based on allegations that he met the victims at an adult club, arranged a modeling session at a motel, provided alcohol, directed them to pose partially undressed, and was present during sexual activity involving an accomplice. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and consecutive sentences, ruling that neither mistake of age nor consent of the minor is a defense to the offense. The court reasoned that the statute's text and structure do not provide for such defenses, consistent with longstanding common-law principles regarding sexual offenses against minors, and that the law's terms are sufficiently definite to avoid vagueness challenges.

criminal law

This case concerned a claim for unemployment insurance benefits by Carol Qualman, who had lost her prior position as a school social worker and declined an offer for a lower-paying elementary school counselor role that also required quick relocation. The Industrial Commission determined that Qualman had refused suitable employment without good cause after fifteen weeks of unemployment and denied her benefits. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that Qualman had not received an offer of employment that triggered the disqualification rule and was therefore eligible for benefits. The core reasoning focused on the lack of a firm employment offer meeting statutory requirements, rather than evaluating the suitability of the position or the claimant's reasons for declining it.

labor & employment

This case involved a dispute between neighboring homeowners in a subdivision over whether a garage with a bonus room above it violated setback requirements in the restrictive covenants. The plaintiffs argued that the structure was a two-story building requiring a ten-foot setback, while the defendants maintained it complied with the five-foot requirement for one-story structures. The Supreme Court of Idaho reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the city's definition of "story" was incorporated into the covenants and that the bonus room constituted a second story, thus violating the covenants. The court remanded for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation.

property