Gerald F. Schroeder

The case involved Joey Pierce, a roofer injured while working on a school district project for a subcontractor without workers' compensation insurance, who sought benefits from the school district as his statutory employer. The Industrial Commission denied the claim, determining that the school district did not qualify as a statutory employer under Idaho law. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed this decision, reasoning that the work performed pertained to the business of the direct employer rather than the school district's operations, applying the virtual proprietor test for category two statutory employers as presented by the parties.

labor & employment

The case involved a dispute over loans made by Vanderford Co. for a real estate development project by Pines Townhomes, LLC, where Vanderford sought to recover approximately $500,000 and foreclose on trust deeds signed by the Greifs, amid competing claims of contracts, unjust enrichment, and lien issues between Vanderford, the Greifs, and Knudson following a jury trial. The Idaho Supreme Court held that Vanderford could not foreclose because the notes lacked language granting real property as collateral, upheld the jury's unjust enrichment award to Knudson against the Greifs, and remanded for a new trial on issues including breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, and oral agreements due to errors in jury instructions. The court also vacated certain verdicts and attorney fee awards pending the outcome on remand, reasoning that the instructions were supported by evidence and law but incomplete, the foreclosure was barred by the document terms, and prevailing party status could not yet be determined.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case concerns the termination of John Doe's parental rights to his child, who had been placed in foster care after testing positive for drugs at birth; the mother later relinquished her rights, and Doe was identified as the father through DNA testing and given a case plan to regain custody. The magistrate court terminated Doe's rights on grounds of abuse and neglect, applying a presumption under Idaho Code § 16-1629(9) that termination was in the child's best interest after the child had spent 15 of 22 months in state custody, and the district court affirmed. The Idaho Supreme Court vacated the termination order and remanded the case, ruling that the magistrate court had used the wrong legal standard by improperly shifting the burden to Doe to rebut termination rather than requiring the state to prove its allegations by clear and convincing evidence. This approach violated due process requirements from Santosky v. Kramer and Idaho's traditional presumption favoring custody by natural parents. The court held that the statute creates only a presumption for initiating termination proceedings, not for finding termination to be in the child's best interest.

family lawcivil rights

In State v. Smith, the defendant was charged with manufacturing marijuana after police discovered a growing plant during a search of his apartment. The district court suppressed the evidence, ruling that the initial warrantless entries were unjustified after any exigency ended and that the defendant's consent to the search was involuntary. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that the first firefighter's entry was justified by exigent circumstances from the reported fire, the subsequent police entry was a valid continuation, and the consent was voluntary because officers had probable cause for a warrant and merely explained the options without coercion or false threats. The core reasoning focused on the limited scope of the fire investigation entries and the distinction between valid warnings about obtaining a warrant and improper pressure.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether Ada County Commissioners violated Idaho's open meeting law (I.C. § 67-2345) by entering an executive session without legal counsel present to discuss strained relations with Boise City that might lead to future litigation, and whether an untranscribed audio recording of the vote to enter the session satisfied the statute's minutes requirement. The State sued for a declaratory judgment and civil penalties, while the Commissioners counterclaimed for an interpretation of the litigation exception. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that the former litigation exception applied only to meetings with legal counsel based on legislative history showing intent to protect attorney-client communications, that an audio recording did not meet the written minutes requirement, and that violations require proof of specific intent for penalties to apply.

procedure

This case concerned the termination of Jane Doe's parental rights to her child by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. The magistrate court terminated her rights after finding by clear and convincing evidence that she had neglected the child due to her mental illness, which prevented her from fulfilling parental responsibilities, and that she failed to complete key tasks in her court-approved case plan, such as attending parenting classes, substance abuse education, and following mental health recommendations. The district court affirmed, and the Idaho Supreme Court upheld the decision, holding that substantial competent evidence supported the findings regarding neglect, the impact of her mental health conditions, and the child's best interests.

family law