Joseph J. McFadden

The case involved James Ballard, who pleaded guilty to attempted manufacture of a controlled substance pursuant to a plea agreement that included dismissal of other charges and a sentencing recommendation cap. After failing to appear for sentencing and remaining at large for nearly three years, Ballard moved to withdraw his guilty plea upon recapture, but the district court denied the motion due to prejudice to the prosecution and sentenced him to a fixed 15-year term. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered after proper inquiry by the trial court, and that denial of withdrawal under I.C.R. 33(c) was not an abuse of discretion.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a condominium lot owner who sued the homeowners association after it settled claims for unpaid assessments against a bank that had foreclosed on multiple lots in the development, rather than pursuing full collection through litigation. The magistrate court awarded the association delinquent assessments and attorney fees while denying fees to the plaintiff, and the district court affirmed on appeal. The Idaho Supreme Court upheld the judgments, reasoning that the association's decisions to negotiate and settle were reasonable given uncertainties over the bank's liability due to the priority of its deeds of trust and potential offsets for maintenance costs, and that the plaintiff had not shown the association breached its duties. The court also addressed related claims regarding the enforceability of the covenants post-foreclosure and the plaintiff's standing in the matter.

propertyprocedure

In this case, International Equipment Service (IES) leased an industrial building from Pocatello Industrial Park Company (PIPCO) under an agreement requiring PIPCO to maintain the roof, with both parties waiving recovery rights to the extent of insurance coverage. After PIPCO employees damaged IES property during roof repairs, the insurer AFI paid IES and sued PIPCO as subrogee for negligence. IES had unpaid rent discharged in bankruptcy, which PIPCO sought to offset against any damages. The trial court allowed the setoff of the discharged rent debt plus interest against the jury's negligence award to AFI, resulting in no recovery for AFI, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that bankruptcy discharge bars affirmative collection but permits equitable setoff where claims accrued pre-bankruptcy and subrogation creates mutuality of parties.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a worker's compensation claim by Harry Horner against his employer Ponderosa Pine Logging and its insurer for benefits related to a heart attack he suffered in July 1981 while working as a logger in high-altitude terrain in Idaho. The Industrial Commission denied the claim, finding that the claimant's work did not cause the heart attack. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed this decision, reasoning that medical evidence from cardiologists indicated the heart attack resulted from a pre-existing coronary artery disease process rather than the physical labor or altitude, although the work may have precipitated symptoms like angina. The court noted that the Commission was not required to accept the opinions of the claimant's attending physicians over other expert testimony.

labor & employment

This case involves a claim for unemployment compensation by Donald Cornwell, who was terminated from his position as a deputy sheriff with the Kootenai County Sheriff's Office after improperly entering a private residence while on duty. The Industrial Commission denied his request for benefits, finding that he had been discharged for misconduct in connection with his employment under Idaho Code § 72-1366(e). The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the denial, noting that the factual findings were undisputed and that the commission correctly applied the statute to determine that Cornwell's actions constituted misconduct. The court emphasized its limited review to questions of law in such appeals.

labor & employment

In Farber v. Howell, plaintiffs sought a deficiency judgment after purchasing property at a deed of trust sale for less than the amount owed on a promissory note from defendants. After defendants' attorneys withdrew with an order requiring them to appear or appoint new counsel within twenty days, plaintiffs obtained a default order without the required notice, later amended their complaint to add attorney fees, and secured a default judgment when defendants did not respond. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the district court's denial of defendants' motion to set aside the judgment. It held that the first default order was voidable for violating I.R.C.P. 55(b)(2)'s three-day notice requirement to parties who had appeared, the withdrawal order lacked language waiving further notice, and the duty to answer the amended complaint did not eliminate the notice obligation.

procedure

The case concerned a lease agreement for ranch property in Idaho that included a provision requiring the lessor, Circle C Ranch Co., to transfer a 300-head Forest Service grazing permit to the lessees, Paul and Gladys Jayo. After Circle C refused to transfer the permit, the Jayos filed a counterclaim for damages arising from lost rental income and hay during the 1976-77 and 1977-78 grazing seasons. The trial court determined that the Jayos were entitled to use the permit but denied their damages claims as too speculative and unsupported by evidence. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court concluded that damages were provable and recoverable for the first grazing season but remained speculative for the second season due to uncertainties in obtaining temporary permits, and it remanded the case for further proceedings limited to the first season.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a commercial dispute between fish food seller Rangen, Inc. and buyer Valley Trout Farms, Inc. over an open account for delivered goods, where Rangen sought the principal amount owed plus contractual late charges and attorney fees, and Valley Trout raised a usury defense while counterclaiming for an uncredited quantity discount. The trial court awarded Rangen the unpaid principal and statutory interest but disallowed the late charges for lack of an express contract and rejected the usury claim on the ground that the dealings were neither a loan nor a forbearance. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed that the transactions were not usurious and that evidence of Rangen's dealings with other customers was properly excluded, but reversed on the late-charge issue, holding that the finance-charge terms printed on invoices and statements were incorporated into the parties' agreement under UCC § 2-207. The court therefore remanded for calculation of the contractual late charges.

business & regulatory

In this case, buyers who purchased real property in 1966 along with a title insurance policy sued the insurer and its agent after learning in 1978 of an unexcepted prior 1920 conveyance of part of the land to the State of Idaho. The buyers alleged breach of the policy and negligence in failing to report the defect, seeking damages beyond the policy's $1,250 limit. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the title insurer's liability was limited to the policy amount and that it had not assumed the role or tort duties of an abstractor merely by issuing a preliminary report. The court reasoned that the policy language was clear and unambiguous, and the insurer did not hold itself out as performing abstractor services or owe fiduciary duties akin to those of an attorney.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case arose after the Ethingtons started a weed fire that spread to a shed and tree; after the City of Hansen Fire Department extinguished it and left, a second fire damaged the nearby Towne Tavern, leading the tavern owners and operators to sue the Ethingtons for negligence. The Ethingtons then filed a third-party complaint against the fire department seeking indemnity and contribution, alleging it breached a duty by failing to inspect surrounding buildings to prevent fire spread. The jury found the Ethingtons not negligent, the trial court granted a directed verdict to the fire department, and it awarded the department attorney fees and costs on the ground that the third-party claim lacked reasonable foundation. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the fee award, holding that it was within the trial court's discretion under I.C. § 12-121 for pre-1979 actions and that the record, including expert testimony that the department acted properly, supported the conclusion the claim was without reasonable foundation.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved two actions by subcontractors, Acoustic Specialties and Granite Mill & Fixture, to foreclose materialmen's liens on real property owned by Wright, Wood, and Wood (doing business as Hilton Inn) after the general contractor, R.K. & A. Jones, failed to pay them for materials and work on the hotel project. The subcontractors obtained partial summary judgments against the contractor and later foreclosure judgments, plus awards of interest, costs, and attorney fees, against the property owners and their lessee WHW Management, who had intervened. The district court allowed the attorney fees and other amounts to be recovered through foreclosure on the owners' property. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the foreclosure judgments and the awards of interest, costs, and attorney fees. The court reasoned that the liens remained enforceable on the property despite collection efforts against the contractor, that no election of remedies barred the foreclosure, and that attorney fees were properly awarded under applicable statutes.

propertyprocedure

This case involved an insurance dispute in which Glacier General Assurance Company sought a declaratory judgment that it had no liability under a fire insurance policy issued to Mike Hisaw for property destroyed by fire, based on a policy clause excluding coverage for hazards increased by the insured. Hisaw counterclaimed for the policy limits of $73,000, punitive damages, and attorney fees. The district court granted partial summary judgment in Hisaw's favor on Glacier's liability and the amount recoverable under the policy, certified the ruling as final and appealable under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), and left issues of punitive damages and attorney fees for trial. The Idaho Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the action presented only a single claim for money damages and that Rule 54(b) certification was improper because a partial judgment resolving liability but not damages did not adjudicate an entire claim.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

The case involved the University of Utah Hospital seeking reimbursement from Twin Falls County, Idaho, for over $42,000 in medical expenses incurred in treating the premature infant of William and Karen Harris, who the hospital claimed were medically indigent under Idaho Code §§ 31-3401 et seq. and 31-3501 et seq. The hospital filed an application for benefits more than a year after treatment began, following the county clerk's failure to process an earlier submission. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the application was untimely under the 45-day filing requirement of I.C. § 31-3504 (1976) and thus barred regardless of other issues such as indigency status or the hospital's standing to sue.

healthcareprocedure

Dale Shideler pleaded guilty to armed robbery after robbing a bank with a shotgun and firing shots while fleeing; he was sentenced to an indeterminate term of up to twenty years and appealed on the ground that the sentence was excessive. The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the sentence by independently examining the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, and the protection of the public interest, noting both the seriousness of the armed robbery and the absence of any prior criminal history. The record showed that Shideler was a first-time offender who had reformed from prescription-drug abuse, obtained stable employment, and received support from family and his employer. The court therefore modified the sentence to an indeterminate term not to exceed twelve years while affirming the judgment as modified.

criminal law

The case involved defendant James Lee Silcox, who was charged with assault with a deadly weapon after shooting Leroy Burger in the back while attempting a citizen's arrest and firing shots at the fleeing individual; he was convicted of the lesser offense of injuring another by discharge of an aimed firearm. On appeal, Silcox challenged the conviction on two main grounds: that the jury selection process failed to substantially comply with Idaho's Uniform Jury Selection and Service Act because one jury commissioner did not participate in compiling the master lists and wheels, and that the trial court's oral instruction urging the deadlocked jury to continue deliberating was coercive and used improper procedures. The court held that the absence of one commissioner did not violate the Act's substantial compliance requirement, as the record showed no impact on the random or objective nature of the selection process, and that the supplemental instruction was permissible because it emphasized individual judgment without pressuring jurors to abandon honest convictions solely for unanimity. The conviction was therefore affirmed based on these findings regarding jury procedures.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by Harold Houser, who fell from a truck cab while employed as a diesel mechanic and injured his left knee, leading to surgery and ongoing pain complaints including related back issues. The Industrial Commission awarded temporary total disability benefits through January 1979 and a 10% permanent partial disability rating for loss of the leg at the hip, while denying claims for greater disability or additional surgery. The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the consolidated appeals and affirmed the Commission's findings. The core reasoning was that medical testimony from multiple orthopedic surgeons supported the 10% impairment rating with no objective evidence justifying further procedures, and Houser had not met the burden of proving a higher level of permanent disability by a preponderance of the evidence.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Carl Royce, who was injured in a 1972 truck accident while employed by Southwest Pipe and later developed total permanent disability following surgery for a pre-existing colloid cyst. The Industrial Commission found Royce totally and permanently disabled, determined that the cyst did not qualify as a pre-existing permanent physical impairment under I.C. § 72-332(2) because it had not affected his employability prior to the accident, dismissed the Industrial Special Indemnity Fund (ISIF) from liability, and held the employer's surety solely responsible for benefits while awarding attorney fees to Royce. On appeal by the surety, the issues included timeliness of the appeal, whether the cyst met the statutory definition of impairment, denial of a continuance, and the attorney fee award. The court addressed the appeal's timeliness and other procedural matters but upheld the Commission's conclusion that ISIF had no liability due to the lack of a qualifying pre-existing impairment.

labor & employment

The case concerned a 1955 recorded easement contract granting Pacific Northwest Pipeline Corporation (and successors) the right to select routes for and construct one or more pipelines across the grantors' Idaho property for $1 per lineal rod, with the landowners later succeeded by Forrest Weaver Farm, Inc. Northwest Pipeline sought to build a second pipeline in 1979 under the same terms and offered payment plus damages, but Weaver refused and challenged the contract's enforceability. The district court granted summary judgment to Northwest, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the contract language expressly contemplated multiple pipelines, provided an adequate description of the burdened land, and was not void for indefiniteness, lack of time limits, or violation of the rule against restraints on alienation. The court reasoned that the grantee could select a reasonable route for additional lines and that similar multi-pipeline grants had been upheld elsewhere, with any unreasonable exercise subject to judicial review.

property

This case involved Helen True's habeas corpus petition challenging her summary rehospitalization at State Hospital South after her conditional release from involuntary commitment under Idaho law. The Idaho Supreme Court held that due process requires the state to provide a conditionally released patient with prompt written notice and a revocation hearing before a neutral body as soon as reasonably possible after rehospitalization. The court reasoned that such a patient possesses a protected liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment, drawing on Morrissey v. Brewer, and that the ex parte procedures in former I.C. §§ 66-338(b) and 66-339 failed to satisfy constitutional minimums despite the state's interest in treatment and public safety. The decision struck down the statutes to the extent they permitted revocation without notice or hearing, while noting that post-revocation judicial review alone was insufficient.

civil rightshealthcareprocedure

The case involved a dispute over the enforceability of a materialman's lien filed by Ray Kelso against property owned by Wildwood Construction after he supplied unpaid materials and labor. Plaintiff Roger Cather initiated foreclosure proceedings, and Kelso's answer, counterclaim, and crossclaim seeking to foreclose his own lien were filed on April 14, 1980, the Monday after the six-month statutory deadline under I.C. § 45-510 had expired on a Saturday. The district court dismissed Kelso's claims as untimely. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) extends the filing deadline to the next business day when it falls on a weekend, and that this procedural rule applies to the statutory time limit without altering the underlying substantive right.

propertyprocedure