Henry F. McQuade

The case concerned whether holders of a promissory note secured by a deed of trust on Idaho real property could obtain a personal money judgment on the note without first foreclosing on the property through judicial action or power of sale. The sellers had sold property to the buyers, who defaulted on the secured note, and the district court granted summary judgment allowing recovery on the note alone without valuing the security. The Idaho Supreme Court held that the single-action statute, I.C. § 6-101, which requires exhaustion of security before a personal judgment in mortgage cases, does not apply to deeds of trust. The court reasoned that the 1967 Trust Deeds Act created a distinct statutory scheme permitting beneficiaries to choose between power-of-sale foreclosure and judicial foreclosure as for mortgages, thereby allowing an action on the note without prior exhaustion of the security.

propertyprocedure

In Marcher v. Butler, a cleaning employee sued the condominium owner after falling on fan-shaped stairs lacking handrails, alleging negligence in the design and condition of the premises. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant, concluding the stairs were open, visible, and not shown to violate any duty or code. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed on appeal, first addressing the procedural validity of the plaintiff's post-judgment motion and then holding that genuine issues of material fact existed on breach of duty and causation, which must be resolved by a jury under applicable state precedent.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether the Idaho Water Resource Board could pursue a joint hydroelectric project on the Snake River with Idaho Power Company, including applying for a Federal Power Commission license. The Board's secretary refused to sign the joint application as directed by the Board, leading to a mandamus action to compel his signature. The trial court granted the writ, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Board's constitutional and statutory authority to formulate and implement water resource plans, construct projects, and generate hydroelectric power permitted the joint venture and related actions. The court reasoned that the Board's powers, enacted after a 1964 constitutional amendment, encompassed the proposed development as being in the public interest for optimum water use. The decision directed the secretary and successors to execute the application.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved Jean Goodrich, who was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder for fatally shooting her ex-husband Brent Goodrich in her home in October 1973. Goodrich claimed she mistook him for her recently divorced and abusive husband Blaine Bolles, whom she feared, and that the shooting occurred in a frightened state without turning on lights or wearing her glasses. The trial court denied her motions to dismiss and for a new trial, sentencing her to life imprisonment after a presentence investigation and mitigation hearing. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for further proceedings, addressing issues including the admissibility of certain testimony and compliance with procedural rules for jury instructions and sentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved V-1 Oil Company challenging a 1973 personal property tax assessment by the Bannock County Assessor, who tripled the prior year's valuation after the company submitted an incomplete declaration and denied access to its premises for inspection. The company filed a declaratory judgment action in district court seeking to void the assessment and related tax commission regulations, but the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the taxpayer failed to exhaust available administrative remedies before the county board of equalization, as required by statute and prior precedent, because the assessor had authority to make a best-judgment valuation and no notation barred equalization review. The court found no basis to conclude the assessment lacked statutory support and declined to address the tax commission regulations due to lack of briefing.

taxesprocedure

The case involved a dispute over the division of marital personal property consisting of securities and bank accounts following a divorce. The husband obtained a default divorce in Idaho after moving there from New Jersey, but the decree did not address the property in question because it was not requested in the complaint. The wife sued in Idaho seeking an equitable division under New Jersey law, where the marriage was domiciled. The trial court dismissed the action on grounds of comity and res judicata, but the Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that the default judgment did not adjudicate the property rights and remanded for division according to New Jersey law at the time of the divorce.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved Richard Elisondo's conviction after a jury trial for rape of a minor female not his wife under Idaho law, resulting in a sentence of up to seven and one-half years. On appeal, Elisondo argued he was denied reasonably competent assistance of counsel due to various alleged failures by his trial attorney, such as not filing certain motions, not pursuing a mental health defense, and making strategic choices during trial, and also claimed prejudice by the trial judge and jury. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding that Elisondo failed to provide a factual basis showing how counsel's conduct contributed to the conviction or sentence, as required under the applicable standard, and that many allegations concerned unreviewable trial tactics without evidence of inadequate preparation or ignorance of the law. The court also found no support in the record for claims of judicial or jury prejudice.

criminal law

In State v. Oropeza, the defendants were convicted of unlawful possession of heroin after officers executing a search warrant stopped their van as it was leaving the premises, arrested them, and found the drug in the glove compartment. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the convictions on appeal. The court held that the motion to suppress the heroin evidence should have been granted because the affidavit for the warrant did not provide probable cause under the Fourth Amendment and Idaho Constitution, as it failed to include adequate underlying circumstances about the informant's reliability or the basis for linking the heroin to the described residence. The search of the van was therefore unlawful, requiring suppression of the evidence obtained.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Morris, the defendant was charged with four counts of uttering and delivering checks with insufficient funds, pleaded guilty to all counts, and received sentences of three years on each count, with two running consecutively. The defendant appealed, arguing that the court failed to inform him that consecutive sentences could exceed the three-year maximum per count and that the sentencing court abused its discretion, while also raising a procedural claim about delayed filing of the information. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the defendant was adequately advised of the maximum penalty on each count and that consecutive sentencing fell within the court's discretion under state law. The court further found no abuse of discretion in the sentences imposed and ruled that the procedural objection had been waived by the entry of guilty pleas without objection. The decision relied on precedents regarding plea advisements and waiver rules.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over ownership of a 1.081-acre parcel of land in Valley County, Idaho, between the Loomis family and the Union Pacific Railroad Company (including Oregon Short Line Railroad). The Loomises claimed title through adverse possession from 1931 to 1944, after which the land was condemned by the U.S. government and partially returned to them in 1966, while the railroad asserted ownership based on a 1913 deed for right-of-way purposes. The trial court ruled in favor of the railroad, finding that the Loomises had not met the requirements for adverse possession, specifically failing to prove they had paid taxes on the property. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed this decision, also upholding the dismissal of the unlawful detainer claim and addressing procedural aspects of the case.

propertyprocedure

This case involves an appeal from the Idaho Public Utilities Commission's decision to grant a motor common carrier permit to Pugh Brothers Construction for hauling sand, gravel, and aggregates over irregular routes north of the Salmon River in Idaho. Existing permit holders challenged the grant, arguing that the applicants were not fit, willing, and able to perform the service, that public convenience and necessity did not require it, and that existing carriers could adequately serve any demand. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's order, holding that the findings were supported by competent evidence, including testimony on the applicants' experience, financial stability, equipment, and public need, and that prior non-common carrier operations did not disqualify them. The court noted that it does not reweigh evidence but checks for legal errors or abuse of discretion under the Motor Carrier Act.

business & regulatory

This case concerns a dispute over the administration and distribution of the intestate estate of Ova Lewis among her nieces and nephew, focusing on whether real property and a joint savings account should be included in the estate or treated as gifts or survivorship property, along with the validity of the administratrix's personal creditor claim. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the lower court's judgment, ruling that the real property belonged in the estate because the deed was not validly delivered as the recorder acted as the decedent's agent retaining control, and addressing the burden of proof required to overcome the presumption of joint tenancy in the bank account under Idaho Code § 15-6-104(a). The court ordered the administratrix removed and a public administrator appointed to complete settlement and distribution. The decision turned on application of elements for inter vivos gifts and legislative intent regarding evidentiary standards in probate proceedings.

propertyprocedure

This case involved an appeal from a conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicating beverages under Idaho Code § 49-1102. The defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, citing conflicting testimony from the arresting officer and defense witnesses about his driving and sobriety, and claimed a violation of his privilege against self-incrimination. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the weight and credibility of conflicting evidence are for the trier of fact and that substantial competent evidence supported the verdict. It also rejected the self-incrimination claim in the context of the post-arrest questioning and tests.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned an unsuccessful Republican primary candidate for county commissioner who sought to file as an independent and have his name printed on the general election ballot, but the county clerk refused because Idaho law provided no mechanism for independent candidates to appear on the ballot other than as write-ins. The trial court denied a writ of mandamus, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed that denial. The court first addressed mootness due to the election having passed but proceeded because of the substantial public interest in the issues. It then upheld the constitutionality of the election laws against equal protection claims by candidates and voters, explaining that primaries exist to nominate party candidates for the general election and that no statutory provision allowed direct placement of independents on the general ballot.

electionscivil rights

The case involved a plaintiff who was injured in a car accident at an intersection after failing to stop at a sign that he claimed was poorly visible due to its improper height, an overhanging tree, and a nearby hedge; he sued the City of Preston for negligence in constructing and maintaining the sign. The trial court granted summary judgment to the city, finding that any negligence in the sign's construction was not the proximate cause of the accident and that the plaintiff's own negligence was greater than or equal to the city's. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding proximate cause and comparative negligence. The court reasoned that municipal governments have a duty to maintain traffic control devices in a reasonably safe and visible condition, that proximate cause is typically a jury question unless the facts allow only one conclusion, and that summary judgment standards require construing evidence in favor of the non-moving party when credibility or factual disputes arise.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a dispute over an oral agreement in which defendant Sam Huck agreed to buy farm machinery and reimburse fertilizer costs from plaintiff Earl Barnes for a total principal of $8,605, with interest at the rate charged by the Southern Idaho Production Credit Association, to be paid as farming income allowed. Barnes sued in 1972 after Huck stopped payments in 1968 with a remaining balance of $1,350, seeking the principal plus interest; Huck defended by claiming the interest was usurious from the start and counterclaimed for penalties and offsets. The trial court ruled the agreement was valid and enforceable after a reasonable time had passed, found that the interest charged and collected did not exceed the statutory maximum, and awarded Barnes the unpaid principal plus interest. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that usury was not apparent on the face of the transaction, no account stated had been created to alter the original terms, and the action was properly brought on the original account.

business & regulatory

The case involved claimant Loretta Fouste's appeal from the Industrial Commission's denial of unemployment insurance benefits after she quit her job as a machinist due to a 100-mile daily commute and failed to timely request redetermination of an adverse eligibility determination. The Department of Employment mailed its denial on July 24, 1974, but Fouste, who was traveling without providing a forwarding address, did not file her request until September 11, missing the 14-day statutory deadline under I.C. § 72-1368, leading the Commission and lower reviewers to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Fouste argued that the Idaho procedures violated the Social Security Act by not ensuring benefits 'when due' and by denying a fair hearing opportunity, citing California Department of Human Resources v. Java. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the state's appeal timelines and hearing processes were reasonably calculated to provide timely payments after administrative determinations and complied with federal requirements for impartial hearings.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether Idaho courts could exercise personal jurisdiction over a California resident defendant in a lawsuit brought by an Idaho real estate broker corporation for breach of an alleged employment contract to sell land owned by the defendant in Jefferson County, Idaho. The plaintiff claimed it had secured a purchaser but was denied its commission after the defendant repudiated the agreement. The district court quashed service of summons, concluding there was no jurisdiction because the plaintiff could not show written authorization for the defendant's agent under Idaho's statute of frauds. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that jurisdiction existed under the state's long-arm statute (I.C. § 5-514(c)) since the cause of action arose from the defendant's ownership of real property in Idaho, creating a substantial connection that satisfied due process, and that the contract's validity was not properly resolved at the jurisdictional stage.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

In State v. Seiber, defendants Lester Seiber and John Crane were charged with grand larceny after taking a van truck from its owner in Caldwell, Idaho, and later selling some of its contents. One defendant testified that the owner had given permission to use the vehicle temporarily, while the owner denied any such consent. The trial court refused a requested jury instruction on the lesser misdemeanor offense of driving a vehicle without the owner's consent, and both defendants were convicted of the felony. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, reasoning that the evidence at trial supported only a verdict of guilty of grand larceny or not guilty, with no factual basis for instructing on the lesser offense.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Betty Louise Thom against her employer, Mary Callahan d/b/a Wimpy’s Cafe, for a back injury sustained on March 30, 1972, while lifting and closing a slipped oven door. The State Industrial Commission awarded Thom benefits for temporary total and partial disability, permanent partial disability rated at 20% of the whole person, medical expenses, a 10% penalty, and attorney’s fees after finding the injury arose in the course of employment and that the employer had failed to secure required insurance coverage. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that substantial competent evidence, including Dr. Bagby's medical opinion linking the herniated disc to the accident, supported the causation and disability findings despite prior back issues. The court further upheld the penalty and fees based on the employer's noncompliance with the insurance mandate under the Workmen’s Compensation Law.

labor & employment