Darwin W. Thomas

The case involved a dispute over a 1974 farm lease in which Joe and Priscilla Lamb leased about 800 acres of previously uncultivated Idaho land to J.T. and Marguerite Robinson for growing potatoes and wheat, with Lamb obligated to supply irrigation equipment including efforts to obtain pivot systems. Mechanical failures and delays in irrigation caused Robinson's potato yield to fall short of expectations, prompting Lamb to sue for unpaid rent and related costs while Robinson counterclaimed for crop damages. The trial court found Lamb breached the lease by failing to provide adequate irrigation, awarded Robinson net damages of $193,751 for lost potato profits based on evidence of expected versus actual yields, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that such damages were recoverable with reasonable certainty even on new land and were within the parties' contemplation at contracting.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved property owners Harold and Virginia Tibbs suing the City of Sandpoint and Bonner County for compensation after an airport runway extension in 1972 brought larger, noisier aircraft flying at lower altitudes over their adjacent land, allegedly reducing its value and usability for farming, livestock, and residential purposes. A jury returned a verdict for the defendants, but the trial court granted a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the order for a new trial, holding that trial courts have broad discretion to grant new trials when a verdict conflicts with the clear weight of the evidence and explaining that in inverse condemnation actions based on overflights, a taking occurs when interference becomes substantial, with damages measured by the difference in property value before and after the impairment at its highest and best use.

propertyprocedure

The case involved claimant Gabriel Ortiz, who was discharged from his job at Armour & Company after a workplace argument involving profanity, yelling, and an invitation to fight, and who sought unemployment benefits under the Idaho Employment Security Law. An appeals examiner initially found him eligible, but the Industrial Commission reversed that decision after additional hearings and concluded he had been discharged for misconduct connected to his employment. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's denial of benefits, holding that its review is limited to questions of law and that the evidence supported the finding of misconduct. The Court noted that proceedings before the appeals examiner and Commission are trials de novo, allowing additional evidence, and that the basic facts regarding the argument were not substantially disputed.

labor & employment

In this tort case, Swift & Company sued Gutierez for damages after its property was destroyed in a truck collision caused by the defendant's vehicle. The defendant answered with a general denial and an affirmative defense attributing the accident to the negligence of the private carrier transporting the plaintiff's goods. After the plaintiff presented its case, the trial court granted a nonsuit on the ground that evidence showed the plaintiff had already been fully compensated for its loss. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that in a tort action evidence of payment or compensation is not admissible under a general denial because nonpayment need not be pleaded or proved by the plaintiff; any such defense must instead be affirmatively pleaded and shown to come from the defendant or a connected source rather than a collateral one.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a divorce action between spouses married in 1951 with no children, where the wife sued for divorce on grounds of extreme cruelty and sought division of community property, and the husband filed a cross-complaint on the same ground. The trial court granted the wife a divorce, denied the husband relief, divided the property, and later ordered the husband to pay attorney fees, costs, and support pending appeal. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the divorce decree, finding substantial evidence of the husband's course of conduct inflicting mental suffering on the wife sufficient under state law, with the trial court properly resolving conflicts in testimony. It modified the property division to award the wife her separate contributions plus one-half of community assets after tracing funds from premarital accounts and sales, while affirming the order for appellate attorney fees based on the parties' financial circumstances and need for the wife to defend the appeal.

family lawproperty

The case involved a worker who developed acute dermatitis venenata from exposure to oils, greases, and related substances while employed as an automotive mechanic for over seven years. After the condition repeatedly reactivated upon returning to mechanic duties but resolved in other roles like dock labor, the Industrial Accident Board denied total and permanent disability benefits under the Occupational Disease Law but awarded compensation for partial permanent disability residual from the disease and retained jurisdiction to determine its extent. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, interpreting the statute to define disablement as actual and total incapacity from the claimant's specific occupation or trade skill (mechanic work) where he was last exposed, rather than general employability or the broader industry, and holding that the recurring nature of dermatitis did not bar recovery for the permanent effect on that occupation. The court rejected arguments that no compensation was due beyond temporary total disability periods or that the Board lacked jurisdiction for a partial award.

labor & employment