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

The case concerned a motion filed in the Idaho Supreme Court by Viola G. Cole seeking to compel her ex-husband Harvey Cole to pay attorney fees and costs for her appeal from a district court order that enforced a Utah divorce decree by awarding her custody of their two minor children. The Supreme Court denied the motion, ruling that it lacked authority to enforce or independently set such fees on an original application. The court's core reasoning was that Section 31-704, I.C.A., and precedents like Roby v. Roby and Enders v. Enders vest original jurisdiction over attorney fees and suit money in divorce actions with the district courts, which retain that power during an appeal, while the Supreme Court may only review such orders through its appellate jurisdiction.

family lawprocedure

This case is an appeal in Cogswell v. C. C. Anderson Stores Co. in which the majority reversed the trial court judgment. A justice concurs in the first four specifications of the majority opinion but dissents from the fifth, which reversed based on the respondent's attorney's statements to the jury. The core reasoning is that those asserted remarks were not inflammatory or prejudicial enough to require reversal of the judgment.

procedure

The case concerned the State of Idaho's attempt to recover $1,651 in old-age assistance payments made to deceased recipient Frans G. Magnus by filing a claim against his estate under state law Section 24-a. The dissenting opinion concluded that the trial court correctly sustained the demurrer and dismissed the action, holding the claim unauthorized. The core reasoning was that any state authority to recover such payments must derive from the federal Social Security Act's requirements for state plans, but the relevant federal provision authorizing estate collections had been repealed, creating a conflict that rendered the state action a nullity.

federal powerhealthcare

This case involved a dispute over ownership and use of an irrigation ditch in Idaho, where the Reynolds Irrigation District sued landowners Ellen and Hugh Sproat to permanently enjoin them from using the ditch to convey water to their property or interfering with it. The district claimed sole ownership of the ditch as part of its irrigation system, while the Sproats asserted a perpetual interest based on an alleged 1934 agreement with the district's predecessor in interest granting them use rights in exchange for a right-of-way. After a bench trial with conflicting testimony, the trial court ruled in favor of the district, finding it was the sole owner and that the defendants had no legal right to use the ditch without permission. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court's factual findings on witness credibility and the lack of evidence supporting the claimed agreement were supported by substantial competent evidence and would not be disturbed.

property

In State v. Dickens, defendants Guy Dickens and Dan Lloyd were charged with and convicted of grand larceny for allegedly stealing a white-faced Hereford calf belonging to Green Hall and George Rosevear in Elmore County, Idaho, in August 1946; they received prison sentences and appealed. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded the case for a new trial, finding multiple errors in the proceedings. These included the trial court's denial of a challenge for cause to a prospective juror who had discussed the case with the complainant, formed an opinion that would require evidence to overcome, and thus demonstrated actual bias. The court also identified error in admitting an unauthenticated brand inspection certificate as hearsay without proper foundation, improper cross-examination of one defendant about prior statements, and prejudicial jury instructions on reasonable doubt that improperly suggested the defense needed to produce supporting evidence or facts. The opinion did not address the sufficiency of the evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Salhus, the defendant was charged with involuntary manslaughter after a fatal automobile collision in Lewiston, Idaho, in 1946. After an original information was filed, the prosecution obtained leave to file an amended information that added details about the manner of driving, but the defendant was never arraigned or required to enter a plea to the amended charging document. The dissent contends that the clerk failed to read the (amended) information and state the plea to the jury as required by statute, that the original plea did not carry over, and that the absence of a proper plea left no triable issue, rendering the verdict and judgment nullities that required reversal and remand for a new trial. The majority had affirmed the conviction, finding the procedural omissions non-prejudicial and the amendments non-substantive.

criminal lawprocedure

In Maudlin v. Maudlin, the parties divorced in 1944 with the mother receiving custody of their two young children and monthly support payments; two years later the father moved to modify the decree, alleging the mother had failed to properly care for the children, had surrendered them to her parents, and was unfit. After a hearing the trial court found that the children's best interests required a change of custody to the father, a fit custodian, and entered an order to that effect while allowing the mother reasonable visitation. On appeal the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record contained substantial evidence supporting the trial court's findings and that the modification statute (I.C.A. § 31-705) permitted the change absent an abuse of discretion, which was not shown; the court also concluded the mother's motion for a new trial had been abandoned.

family law

The case In Re Zeb's Estate concerned the probate of Joe Zeb's will in Latah County, Idaho, and a later amended petition by his two daughters from a prior marriage seeking a declaratory judgment to construe the will's trust provisions. The will named the testator's second wife Valeria as executrix and trustee, bequeathing her controlling interest in Moscow-Idaho Seed Co., Inc. to operate the business for ten years primarily for her benefit (with profits up to $20,000 per year plus half of any excess) while incidentally benefiting employees, and giving the daughters only nominal five-dollar legacies. The probate court admitted the will to probate and appointed Valeria executrix; after review of the will's terms, findings of fact, and conclusions of law, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment and decree construing the will.

family lawproperty

The case Maher v. Gentry involved a dispute between former spouses over ownership of water from a spring located on the defendant's land, following their 1933 divorce and 1935 partition of a homestead property. The plaintiff sought to quiet title to the spring's waters and an easement for a pipeline, claiming rights based on prior use, while the defendant cross-claimed for sole ownership. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that the parties had agreed during the property division that water rights would follow land ownership, with the plaintiff receiving the tracts with other springs, and that the spring constituted private waters under Idaho law for which the plaintiff had not established a valid claim through statutory compliance. The decision affirmed the trial court's decree based on evidence of the agreement and the lack of any valid prior claim by the plaintiff.

propertyfamily law

In Hancock v. Elkington, the plaintiff leased community real property from defendants on a crop-share basis for three years, with an option to purchase, took possession, and later sued for damages after the defendants sold the land to third parties without notifying him or offering him the chance to buy. The lease was unsigned and unacknowledged by the wife, and under Idaho Code Sec. 31-913 a lease of community real estate for more than one year constitutes a conveyance that requires both spouses' execution and acknowledgment to be valid. The trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, and the Supreme Court affirmed because no recovery is allowed on a void contract and the complaint failed to state sufficient facts for an independent claim such as fraud.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

The case involved Tom Louie, a dishwasher at Bamboo Gardens restaurant, who was shot and injured by Fook Lee Hong while on duty in October 1946. Hong, a veteran with delusions stemming from a prior narcotics arrest, entered the restaurant and fired shots, one of which struck Louie; Hong was later found insane and committed. The Industrial Accident Board denied Louie's workers' compensation claim, ruling that the injury did not arise out of his employment despite occurring in the course of it. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that the employment placed Louie in the position and environment where the random assault occurred, satisfying the statutory requirements for compensation, and that no exclusions like willful intent applied.

labor & employment

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Harry A. Wells, a fireman on a logging railroad operated by Potlatch Forests, Inc., who alleged that sand blown into his eyes during a shift on June 4, 1943, caused progressive vision loss and eventual blindness. The Industrial Accident Board awarded benefits after finding the injury arose from the employment and contributed to the condition, despite conflicting medical evidence suggesting possible Harada’s disease or unrelated causes. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the award, holding that its review is limited to questions of law and that substantial evidence supported the board's factual determination that the accident caused or aggravated the blindness. The court noted the testimony of treating physicians linking the incident to the outcome and the absence of proof that the condition would have occurred independently.

labor & employment

This case involved a divorce action brought by Emma Thomey against Henry Thomey in Idaho state court. The parties had lived together as husband and wife for thirteen years, including nine years after Emma obtained a divorce from her prior husband, performing typical spousal and household duties without a formal marriage ceremony. The trial court found that the couple had formed a common-law marriage after the legal impediment was removed, granted the divorce on grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment, and divided their community property. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the continued cohabitation and assumption of marital duties after removal of the impediment created a valid common-law marriage under state law, supported by presumptions favoring the legality of marriage. The court rejected the defendant's argument that a new express agreement was required.

family lawproperty

In State v. Burwell, the defendant was charged with adultery via a prosecuting attorney's information in Idaho state court; after the original information was found defective for an uncertain offense date, an amended information was filed late, the defendant never entered a formal plea to either information, and the trial proceeded with only a vague minute entry noting that 'the defendant's plea stated' to the jury. The trial court denied the defendant's pleas to jurisdiction and in bar, convicted him after trial, and imposed a prison sentence. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that Idaho statutes (such as Sec. 19-1613, I.C.A.) mandate a specific form of plea entry on the minutes and that the incomplete record of the plea, combined with the defendant's uncontroverted affidavit of no plea, constituted reversible error without any harmless-error exception available in the state. The court distinguished contrary California precedent based on that state's constitutional provision and emphasized the mandatory procedural requirements.

criminal lawprocedure