Allan G. Shepard

The case involved Bon Appetit Gourmet Foods challenging a requirement to pay unemployment compensation taxes on its door-to-door sales agents, who were independent contractors but classified as covered employees under Idaho statute I.C. § 72-1316(d)(2) because they distributed food products. The Industrial Commission upheld the tax obligation despite finding the agents to be independent contractors. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding the statute unconstitutional under equal protection clauses because it arbitrarily singled out certain types of door-to-door distributors for employee status without a rational basis related to a legitimate government purpose.

labor & employmenttaxesbusiness & regulatorycivil rights

The case involves a workers' compensation claim by Paul E. Frank against his employer, The Bunker Hill Company, following a severe injury in a mining accident in 1980 that caused multiple fractures and long-term impairments. The Industrial Commission initially awarded Frank total and permanent disability benefits after classifying him as an odd-lot worker unable to find employment, but modified the award to 55 percent total permanent disability (35 percent whole-man impairment plus 20 percent for non-medical factors) following the employer's petitions for rehearing and modification alleging fraud, manifest injustice, and other issues. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the modified award, holding that the Commission properly evaluated conflicting evidence on the claimant's physical condition, employability, and lack of interest in retraining, and that no procedural errors required reversal.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs Zehm, who joined a nonprofit logging contractors association solely to access its optional group health insurance plan, suing the association after a carrier change resulted in their denial of coverage due to preexisting medical conditions; they claimed breach of fiduciary duty through inadequate notice of the change, failure to maintain comparable benefits, and self-interested decision-making. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant association. The court assumed arguendo that a fiduciary duty existed but held that the Zehms failed to present evidence contradicting the association's showing that the carrier switch was driven solely by member cost concerns with no financial benefit to the association, that the Zehms received written notices but did not read or rely on them (breaking any causation), and that no duty or representation existed to guarantee continuous identical coverage.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

This case involved the appeal of Richard Leavitt's conviction for first-degree murder and death sentence in the 1984 killing of a Blackfoot, Idaho woman, whose body was found mutilated in her home after multiple stab wounds. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including the defendant's type O blood mixed with the victim's at the scene, an unexplained wound on his finger, his inconsistent explanations for the injury, his unusual post-murder behavior and phone calls, and other testimony. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the conviction after reviewing the record for prejudicial errors such as pretrial publicity, the admission of gruesome photographs, a seized letter, and testimony about the defendant's knife use and prior acts, finding the evidence sufficient to support the jury's verdict. However, the court reversed the death sentence and remanded for further consideration of the penalty phase.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Sindak, the defendant was convicted in magistrate court of the misdemeanor offense of enticing children under Idaho Code § 18-1509 after his trial began more than six months following his not-guilty plea, due to repeated vacating of trial dates from magistrate court calendar overcrowding. The district court affirmed the conviction, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding a violation of the statutory speedy-trial right under I.C. § 19-3501(3). The Idaho Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded to reinstate the conviction, holding that the statute's dismissal requirement is not triggered by court congestion alone when the defendant did not object to the postponements, request no delay himself, and made no showing of prejudice. The Court distinguished prior precedent and declined to apply constitutional speedy-trial balancing tests, as the claim rested solely on the statute.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved sellers of farmland (the Osborns) suing a notary public (Ahrens) for negligently or falsely acknowledging a signature on mortgage and promissory note documents that were later found to be forgeries in a prior lawsuit against the purported buyers. The jury awarded the Osborns damages based on the unpaid balance of the note plus interest and attorney fees from the earlier case, finding the notary's act was the proximate cause of their loss when they could not recover from the defaulting parties. The court affirmed the liability finding, the measure of damages tied to the contractual obligation, and the ruling that the statute of limitations did not bar the claim because the plaintiffs lacked knowledge of the harm until the prior adjudication. It reversed only on the award of prejudgment interest, holding that interest must be calculated as simple interest at the contract rate rather than compounded.

torts & liabilityprocedureproperty

The case concerned the potential liability of an accounting firm, Main Hurdman, to a third-party bank, Idaho Bank & Trust, that relied on an audit report prepared for First Bank & Trust in connection with a loan transaction. After First Bank & Trust entered receivership and the loan defaulted, Idaho Bank & Trust sued the accounting firm for negligence in the audit. The Idaho Supreme Court declined to follow either strict privity or the broader Restatement (Second) of Torts standard for third-party liability, instead adopting the three-pronged test from Credit Alliance v. Arthur Andersen & Co. that requires the accountants' awareness of a particular purpose for the report, intent that a known party rely on it, and some conduct linking the accountants to that party. The court remanded the case for the district court to apply this standard.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved an appeal by defendants Mike Newell and Melody Janes from the denial of their motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of a residence pursuant to a warrant. The search led to charges against Newell for possession of heroin and against Janes for two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that the magistrate had a substantial basis for finding probable cause under the totality of the circumstances test from Illinois v. Gates. The informant's detailed tip about drug activity, personal observations, and specific descriptions was corroborated by the detective's independent investigation of the location, residents, and suspicious activity, satisfying constitutional requirements without needing the stricter Aguilar-Spinelli two-pronged test.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved claims by plaintiff Hinman against her former employer Morrison-Knudsen and supervisor Burge for age and gender discrimination in employment, breach of an implied employment contract, and tortious interference with contract. After a jury returned special verdicts for the defendants, the trial court granted a new trial on the discrimination and contract claims, finding the verdicts against the weight of the evidence under I.R.C.P. 59(a)(6) and irregularities from bailiff-jury communications under I.R.C.P. 59(a)(1), but denied a new trial as to Burge and entered judgment in his favor. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court acted within its broad discretion in weighing the evidence and finding reasonable doubt that the bailiff's conduct could have affected the jury, and that denial of attorney fees to Burge was proper given the lack of segregation of fees between defendants.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case is an appeal from a district court's denial of post-conviction relief to petitioner McKinney, who had been convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy, robbery, and related charges, resulting in a death sentence that was previously affirmed on direct appeal. The court affirmed the denial of relief, holding that claims regarding jury selection, handcuffs at trial, evidence admissibility, confrontation rights, sentencing procedures, and cruel and unusual punishment were waived because they could have been raised on direct appeal. On the remaining ineffective assistance of counsel claims under the Strickland standard, the court reasoned that trial counsel's failure to present evidence of McKinney's alleged childhood physical, sexual, and drug abuse or to correct details of a prior Arizona firearm incident did not prejudice the defense, as the evidence would not have altered the sentencing outcome given the overwhelming aggravating factors and the premeditated nature of the murder. The court agreed with the trial court's assessment that the childhood abuse claims did not constitute valid mitigation in light of the planned robbery and killing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether Public Road 460, formally opened and dedicated by Latah County in 1904 and providing the only access to Taggart's property, remained a public road or had been abandoned by the North Latah County Highway District due to lack of public maintenance since the 1930s. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling that the road was still public, holding that the highway district had not followed the statutory procedures for formal abandonment or vacation under Idaho Code §§ 40-202 and 40-203, and that continued use of the road prevented any claim of abandonment under prior statutes. The court also upheld the denial of attorney fees to Taggart, finding that the case did not satisfy the private attorney general doctrine because it involved limited societal benefit and affected primarily one individual. The highway district's cross-appeal asserting informal abandonment was rejected.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a dispute over the validity of the will of James Gregg Roll, challenged by two of his sons on grounds of undue influence by the other beneficiaries who drafted and witnessed the will. The jury upheld the will's validity after hearing conflicting evidence about the testator's capacity and independence, and the trial court denied the challengers' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the presumption of undue influence was rebutted by substantial competent evidence of the testator's strong will, that the jury instructions adequately stated the law, and that attorney fees were properly awarded on appeal as it merely sought to reweigh the evidence.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by William Hegel, a 67-year-old logger with prior back impairment, who suffered additional injuries to his head, ribs, shoulder, and chest in a 1982 workplace accident while employed by Kuhlman Brothers, Inc. The Idaho Industrial Commission found Hegel totally and permanently disabled under the odd-lot doctrine based on his combined medical impairments (15% from 1979 and 9% from 1982) plus 76% non-medical factors like age, limited education, and work history, and apportioned liability for the non-medical portion between the employer's surety and the Industrial Special Indemnity Fund. The Fund appealed, arguing that Hegel failed to make a prima facie odd-lot case because he had not attempted other employment after the accident. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that its findings were supported by substantial competent evidence and that the combination of Hegel's impairments and non-medical factors rendered further job search attempts futile, satisfying the requirements for odd-lot classification without needing actual attempts at work.

labor & employment

In State v. Mesenbrink, the State appealed the trial court's mid-trial dismissal of a felony DUI charge under I.C. § 18-8005(3), which enhances a third DUI within five years to a felony. The prosecution sought to introduce two prior DUI convictions, but the defendant challenged the Canyon County judgment because its record did not affirmatively demonstrate that he had been advised of his rights to counsel, confrontation, against self-incrimination, and to understand the charges and plea consequences, as required by Boykin v. Alabama, State v. Colyer, I.C.R. 11, and I.M.C.R. 5(f). The trial court agreed and dismissed the felony enhancement. The Idaho Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal, holding that the State bears the burden to show a voluntary waiver on the face of the prior judgment record and that the Canyon County form failed to include the mandated advisements, unlike the Ada County conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a worker's compensation claim by Kenneth Ryen against the City of Coeur d'Alene and related insurance funds for additional benefits stemming from a 1975 back injury sustained on the job. The Industrial Commission denied the claim, ruling it was barred by the statute of limitations in I.C. § 72-706 because no income benefits had been paid in the year before the 1986 filing. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that ongoing payments of medical benefits qualified as "compensation" under the statute's definition and prior precedents, which tolled the limitations period even after income benefits ended. As a result, the claim was timely filed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings on the merits.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerned whether the Idaho Personnel Commission has authority to award attorney fees to successful parties in administrative appeals under I.C. § 12-117. Appellants Stewart and Summers were dismissed from their state hospital jobs, successfully appealed to the Personnel Commission to win reinstatement and back pay, and sought fees after the Commission found the agency's action lacked a reasonable basis in fact; both the Commission and the district court on appeal ruled that no such authority existed. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Commission may award fees when it determines a state agency acted without a reasonable basis in fact or law, consistent with the statute's text and the court's prior decision in Bogner v. State Dept. of Revenue & Taxation. The court reasoned that denying fees to prevailing parties at the administrative level while allowing them on appeal to district court would create an irrational disparity.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a worker's compensation claim by Blaine Sellmer, who was injured while lifting sacked seed potatoes at a warehouse owned by Ruen Farms, Inc. The Industrial Commission denied benefits on the ground that Sellmer was engaged in an agricultural pursuit exempt from coverage under Idaho Code § 72-212(8). The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, applying a three-pronged test focusing on the employer's business, the traditional meaning of agriculture, and the specific activities at issue, and concluded that the loading and unloading of an agricultural commodity fell within the statutory exemption. The court also rejected an equal protection challenge to the agricultural exemption, deferring to the legislature's judgment.

labor & employment

The case involved parents suing a hospital and two physicians for medical malpractice after their premature child suffered complications following tonsillectomy, adenoidectomy, and myringotomy surgery, allegedly due to negligence in preoperative assessment and response to laryngospasm that caused oxygen deprivation and lasting harm. The trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that under Idaho Code §§ 6-1012 and 6-1013, a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action must produce expert testimony showing both the applicable community standard of care in the locality where treatment occurred and a breach of that standard, but the plaintiffs' experts had not established familiarity with the Twin Falls standard or demonstrated any breach.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved the University of Utah Hospital's attempt to recover medical indigency benefits from Minidoka County for emergency treatment provided to Mrs. Heward in 1982, after her insurance and personal resources proved insufficient and the Hewards later filed for bankruptcy. The county commissioners denied the hospital's February 1984 application as untimely filed, and the hospital sued directly in district court without requesting a hearing before the board. The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint. The core reasoning was that Idaho Code § 31-3505 and the Administrative Procedures Act require exhaustion of administrative remedies—including a hearing before the county commissioners after denial—before judicial review is available, and the district court could only review the agency's record rather than take new evidence or decide facts in the first instance.

healthcareprocedure

The case involved a challenge to a Pocatello city ordinance imposing a street restoration and maintenance fee on all property owners or occupants, calculated by estimated traffic generated by the property. The district court granted summary judgment invalidating the ordinance and prohibiting enforcement, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the charge was not a valid fee authorized by I.C. § 63-2201A but instead constituted a disguised tax, as it was a revenue-raising measure unrelated to direct services or regulation and lacked required voter approval under the state constitution. The opinion addressed standing but focused on the fee-versus-tax distinction, noting prior failed levy elections and the non-regulatory nature of general street maintenance.

taxesproperty