James W. Porter

In State v. Barter, a doctor was charged with reckless driving, a misdemeanor, after being stopped by police while traveling between his offices. A complaint filed in probate court was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds due to a prior traffic citation in justice court, but a second complaint was then filed in probate court describing the offense as occurring only south of a certain town rather than both north and south. The defendant was convicted in probate court and again on appeal in district court. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the dismissal of the first complaint barred prosecution under the second complaint because the two charged the same offense under Idaho Code sections 19-3504 and 19-3506, which make such a dismissal a bar to further prosecution of misdemeanors.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Pefley, the appellant pleaded guilty in justice court to driving under the influence, paid the imposed fine, and had the jail sentence suspended, after which the Department of Law Enforcement revoked his driver's license for one year. He then sought to appeal the conviction to district court, claiming the justice of the peace had misadvised him, but the state moved to dismiss on grounds that voluntary payment of the fine had satisfied the judgment. The district court dismissed the appeal, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under the weight of authority a defendant who fully satisfies a criminal judgment by paying the fine waives the right to appeal, rendering the matter moot as there is nothing left for an appellate court to act upon. The court further reasoned that the separate administrative license revocation was not part of the justice court judgment and did not preserve a right to appeal after voluntary satisfaction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a workers' compensation claim filed by the minor children of Wendell Hillenbrand, who was killed in a car accident in Idaho while traveling on company business for Consolidated Freightways. Hillenbrand had been employed in Washington, transferred to Oregon, and sent to Boise for work; after completing a personal side trip to visit relatives, he was returning on the direct route when the fatal collision occurred. The Industrial Accident Board awarded benefits, and the employer and insurer appealed, arguing that the accident did not arise in the course of employment due to the deviation, that Idaho lacked jurisdiction because the employment contract was made outside the state, and that Oregon law should control under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the award, holding that the personal deviation had ended and Hillenbrand had resumed his employment duties at the time of the accident, that Idaho properly exercised jurisdiction over an in-state injury under its workers' compensation law, and that neither the place of contracting nor Oregon's more limited extraterritorial rules barred application of Idaho law.

labor & employment

The case involved appellants seeking to enjoin the Idaho Secretary of State from certifying an initiative petition titled "Initiative Measure for Right to Employment Regardless of Labor Organization Membership" for the November 1958 general election ballot, based on claims of insufficient valid signatures and failures to follow statutory requirements in the petition process. The trial court sustained a demurrer and dismissed the complaint. By the time the appeal reached the Idaho Supreme Court, the election had taken place, the measure had been defeated by voters, and the court determined that the issues had become moot with no remaining actual controversy or possibility of effective relief.

electionslabor & employment

The case involved a worker's compensation claim by respondent Townsend for an injury to his right eye from a foreign substance, which he alleged occurred during his employment cleaning a pumphouse for Cahoon Construction Company. The Industrial Accident Board awarded compensation after finding that the accident most likely happened during the cleanup work, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the award on appeal. The court reasoned that the evidence established by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury occurred during employment, as the hazardous dusty conditions at work made that the most probable cause over the brief period after termination, and the claimant was not required to exclude all other possibilities. The court disregarded an unnecessary recital about prior compensation payments as surplusage.

labor & employment

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit brought by plaintiff Hubble against defendant Lloyd Record after Hubble was struck and injured by a homemade mechanical sweep device on one of Record's trucks while working as a pea pitcher during harvest operations on leased farmland. Smith Frozen Foods of Idaho, Inc., which had leased the land and arranged for the harvest, was dismissed from the case. The jury found Record negligent and awarded Hubble $42,833 in damages, which the trial court reduced by $10,000 before denying Record's motion for a new trial on grounds of excessiveness and passion or prejudice. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the reduced judgment, holding that substantial evidence supported the jury's finding of negligence, that contributory negligence was properly a question for the jury rather than a matter of law, and that the modified verdict was not so disproportionate to the injuries as to require further reduction or a new trial.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a custody dispute in which Mary Ardella Freeman petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in district court to regain custody of her two minor children from Vesta J. Hendrickson, who had cared for them in Idaho after moving from Tennessee. The district court indicated it would award custody to Hendrickson and placed the children temporarily with a children's home before returning them to her; Freeman then moved for a stay of proceedings pending appeal, but the trial judge did not grant it. Freeman sought a writ of mandate from the Idaho Supreme Court to compel the district judge to issue the stay. The Supreme Court denied the writ, ruling that mandamus does not lie to control a trial court's lawful discretion and that Freeman had no clear legal right to the stay.

family lawprocedure

The case involved two consolidated actions by the parents and minor son of William Byron Hoffman, who was struck and injured by an automobile driven by Lee Barker while working as a state checker on a highway reconstruction project contracted to Marion J. Hess. The plaintiffs sought damages from both the Barkers and Hess, alleging inadequate warnings and signals on the highway. The jury awarded damages against the Barkers but found in favor of Hess, and the plaintiffs appealed the judgments exonerating Hess. The court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly excluded remote evidence of prior highway conditions, that the jury instructions on the contractor's duty to warn fairly stated the law and did not improperly inject contributory negligence, and that the evidence supported the verdict finding the warnings adequate.

torts & liability

This case involved a claim for workers' compensation death benefits by partial dependents of John R. Atwood, who was killed in a work-related accident while employed by the Idaho Department of Agriculture. The Industrial Accident Board dismissed the claim because no dependency claim was filed with the Board within one year of the death, as required by Idaho Code sections 72-301 and 72-402. The claimants argued that correspondence with the State Insurance Fund constituted a filing, waiver, or estoppel, but the Idaho Supreme Court held that the Fund is an independent agency, not equivalent to the Board, and the correspondence did not satisfy the filing requirement or establish waiver or estoppel. The Court affirmed the Board's order denying the petition for hearing.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a dispute over a contract to construct a dairy barn where the contractor completed the work but the owners refused payment claiming it did not meet contract specifications, leading the contractor to file and seek foreclosure of a mechanic's lien for the unpaid balance. The trial court found substantial performance, ordered specific repairs, and entered judgment for the contractor including lien foreclosure. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred by relying on evidence outside the record, applying incorrect standards for determining substantial compliance and measuring damages, improperly delegating fact-finding to a referee, and failing to take evidence on the land subject to the lien. The court emphasized that substantial performance allows recovery of the contract price minus correction costs and that the extent of lienable property requires evidentiary support under Idaho statute.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a state highway department's condemnation of 3.21 acres from an 8.85-acre tract owned by the appellants near Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, plus severance of an additional 0.69 acres, leaving 4.95 acres. The sole disputed issue at trial was the amount of just compensation, with the trial court awarding $7,000 after hearing conflicting appraisal testimony from both sides. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the award fell within the range of the evidence presented and was supported by substantial competent testimony, so it would not be disturbed on appeal. The court also upheld the trial court's treatment of two unattached barracks-style buildings moved onto the land as personal property not subject to condemnation. Finally, the court declined to review the denial of a new-trial motion because the appellants had not filed a separate notice of appeal from that order.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Bernard H. Aims, who was convicted by a jury of negligent homicide under Idaho Code Section 49-1101 after his passenger died in a single-car accident on an icy highway early in the morning. The Supreme Court of Idaho reversed the conviction and ordered the action dismissed, concluding that the evidence failed to prove the defendant drove in reckless disregard of the safety of others. Although testimony showed the defendant had been drinking, smelled of liquor, admitted he was drunk, and left skid marks before crashing into a borrow pit, the court held that intoxication and speed alone do not meet the statutory standard of reckless disregard, and that ordinary negligence or the mere fact of an accident and death is insufficient. The opinion emphasized that the information's allegations of driving under the influence and at excessive speed were not pertinent to the negligent homicide charge and that the jury had focused on the consequences rather than the required proof of the cause.

criminal law

This case involved a lawsuit for damages from an automobile collision in Idaho, where the California resident defendant was served through the Secretary of State. After the defendant failed to appear timely, a default was entered, and the trial court denied a motion to set it aside based on excusable neglect under Idaho Code Section 5-905. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that the delay caused by the defendant's prompt forwarding of the summons to his insurer, who mistakenly believed service occurred later, constituted excusable neglect under the statute, with no prejudice to the plaintiffs and a meritorious defense presented.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a dispute over ownership of a dwelling house in Pocatello, Idaho. Respondent Vera Shellhorn claimed an undivided one-half interest based on the property being purchased with community funds during her marriage to Joseph R. Shellhorn, Sr., and that it was titled in the names of appellants (Joseph Jr. and wife) to deprive her of her interest. The trial court found the property was community property and awarded respondent half after allowing a $500 claim to appellants. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court's findings were supported by substantial, though conflicting, evidence.

family lawproperty

The case involved a 1955 lawsuit by respondent Gene Davis against appellant Wayne Rathbun for $967.77 allegedly owed on a 1948 account for gasoline and merchandise. The parties discussed that the goods were jointly purchased by Rathbun and three others, and they agreed to attempt collection from the others before proceeding with the suit; however, after settlement efforts stalled, the plaintiff obtained a default and default judgment from the clerk in 1956 without further notice. Rathbun promptly moved to set aside the default under Idaho Code Section 5-905 on grounds of excusable neglect, but the trial court denied the motion. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that Rathbun reasonably believed no further action would occur without notice during the ongoing negotiations, acted diligently upon learning of the judgment, and caused no prejudice to the plaintiff.

procedure

The case involved the conviction of appellant Thomas in Boise City Police Court, and later by a jury in Ada County District Court, for the misdemeanor of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of a city ordinance. Thomas appealed, arguing that his erratic driving could have resulted from codeine in painkiller pills rather than alcohol, that the trial court gave improper jury instructions on the influence of liquor, and that officers should not have been allowed to give non-expert opinions on his intoxication. The Idaho Supreme Court held that the evidence of alcohol consumption combined with observed impairment was sufficient, that it was immaterial whether impairment resulted from liquor alone or in combination with other substances, and that no error occurred in refusing the requested instruction or admitting the officers' testimony. The court affirmed the judgment of conviction.

criminal law

The case involved a candidate for Kootenai County Sheriff who was convicted of failing to file a required statement of personal campaign expenses within 20 days after the 1956 nominating election, as mandated by Idaho Code Sections 34-620 and 34-621. The county auditor mailed the required notice after the statutory deadline, and the candidate did not receive it until after the filing period had expired, though he filed the statement the same day he received the notice. The trial court ruled that timely notice was irrelevant to the offense and rejected the defendant's offer of proof on that issue. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the statute's notice requirement must be given effect and that a candidate cannot be convicted without being allowed a reasonable time to file after actual receipt of notice. Because the undisputed facts established a complete defense, the court directed dismissal of the case.

electionscriminal law

The case involved a minor employee of the Idaho Department of Highways who was injured when struck by a car while checking gravel on a road construction project. The plaintiffs, including the injured worker and state subrogees under workers' compensation law, sued the car's owners and the construction company for concurrent negligence, alleging the company failed to provide adequate warnings or barriers despite ongoing work. The trial court sustained the construction company's demurrer and dismissed the claims against it. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that any alleged negligence by the construction company was not the proximate cause of the injury because the driver's negligence constituted an intervening cause that solely produced the harm.

torts & liability

This case involved a dispute over custody of two minor children after a 1955 Nevada divorce decree awarded permanent custody to the father with visitation rights to the mother, followed by a 1956 Nevada modification granting the mother temporary summer custody. The mother filed in Idaho to obtain permanent custody while the father sought enforcement of the Nevada decrees via habeas corpus; the suits were consolidated, and the trial court awarded full custody to the father. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the father's course of conduct in moving the children repeatedly to avoid visitation, telling them their mother was dead, and otherwise alienating their affections constituted a material change in circumstances since the Nevada decrees, justifying an award of custody to the mother with visitation for the father and an order for child support. The court emphasized that it gave full faith and credit to the Nevada judgments and considered only post-decree developments plus uncontested evidence of prior conduct.

family law

The case involved Allied Van Lines' application for an intrastate motor carrier permit under the grandfather clause of Idaho Code Section 61-802 for transporting household goods statewide, which the Idaho Public Utilities Commission initially granted in 1952 but later revoked in 1955 for the company's failure to appear at a hearing and provide operational records. After further hearings on reinstatement, the Commission denied the permit, concluding that the company's pre- and post-permit operations did not qualify under the grandfather provision and were not in the public interest. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the Commission's orders, holding that the agency failed to regularly pursue its authority by not making findings on the show-cause violation and instead treating the matter as an original application, and that the evidence did not support denying the permit based on the company's fitness and operations.

business & regulatoryprocedure