Bert H. Miller

The case involved a challenge to a proposed amendment to the Idaho Constitution, submitted via Senate Joint Resolution No. 1, that would change the terms of executive officers including extending the governor's term from two to four years while also imposing a one-term limit with an intervening period before re-eligibility. The dissenting justice argued that the legislature failed to follow mandatory constitutional procedures under Article 20, Section 1 when proposing the amendment, that legislative intent could not be used to correct deficiencies in the submission, and that the measure improperly combined multiple distinct questions into a single proposition in violation of rules against logrolling. The dissent concluded that the amendment was void for these reasons and that the writ should issue to compel the Secretary of State to accept candidate declarations without regard to the purported amendment.

electionsprocedure

This case involved a contract dispute between H. S. Cramer & Co., a New York corporation, and Washburn-Wilson Seed Co., an Idaho corporation, over allowances under two seed purchase agreements. The parties agreed in writing to submit their differences to arbitration by a committee appointed by trade associations in Seattle, Washington, which issued an award directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff $1,580.21. After partial payment, the plaintiff sued in Idaho district court to recover the balance, but the court sustained a demurrer and dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court had jurisdiction because the arbitration agreement provided that the award would be binding as a decision of a court of last resort and Washington law permitted the award to be entered and enforced as a judgment.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case arose after attorney J.H. Felton successfully contested a will that left nearly all of Seigle Coleman’s estate to charities, a bequest ruled invalid under Idaho Code because the will was executed less than thirty days before the testator’s death. Felton had written fee agreements with two heirs and claimed the remaining defendants (Orval Finley, Ida Davis, Nan Holder, and Rose Finley Nichles) had acquiesced to his representation; the trial court awarded him a 50% share of the increased distributions each defendant received, totaling $9,589.92, and ordered the funds paid from money held by the court clerk. Felton moved to dismiss the defendants’ appeal, arguing that payment of the judgment satisfied it and rendered the appeal moot. The Idaho Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that the payment did not constitute satisfaction because the defendants had clearly preserved their right to appeal, Felton knew an appeal was planned, and he had agreed to repay the fees if the judgment was reversed.

procedurefamily law

This case involved a worker who suffered a leg injury in April 1942 while employed by a construction company and received workers' compensation awards in 1944 and 1946 from the Industrial Accident Board. In November 1947, more than five years after the accident, the worker petitioned for additional benefits due to a claimed change in condition, including total disability and medical costs. The Board dismissed the petition under Idaho Code Section 43-1407, which bars applications for modification of awards based on changed conditions if filed more than four years after the accident date. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the four-year limitation was clear, applied directly to bar the claim, and did not violate constitutional provisions regarding due process, equal protection, or legislative procedures.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved an appeal from a conviction for grand larceny based on an information alleging that the defendant stole various items valued over $60 from a store. The dissenting opinion concluded that the information was legally insufficient to charge the crime because it omitted the statutory requirement that the taking be done 'feloniously' and failed to allege an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. The core reasoning drew on common-law definitions of larceny, statutory language, and precedents holding that felonious intent is an essential element of the offense that must be expressly pleaded to establish the corpus delicti and distinguish criminal conduct from civil wrongs. The dissent therefore would have reversed the conviction and remanded the case.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Ernest R. Videan, who was divorced in Michigan with a court order to pay weekly child support until his youngest child turned 17; after moving to Idaho, he was arrested on a Michigan requisition for extradition on charges of non-support of his minor children. Michigan's requisition documents alleged that Videan committed acts in Idaho resulting in the Michigan crime but did not establish that he was a fugitive from Michigan or base the charges on an indictment as required by Idaho statute. The Idaho governor issued an extradition warrant, which Videan challenged through a habeas corpus petition in Idaho district court. The Idaho Supreme Court held that the extradition proceedings failed to conform to statutory requirements because the charges were improperly based on a complaint rather than an indictment and the warrant inaccurately described the charges, rendering the governor's action unauthorized. The court reversed the denial of habeas corpus and directed that Videan be discharged.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedurefederal power