The case involved a lawsuit by Delores Franklin against three Boise City police officers and the city after her son Ronald Walker, an African-American, drowned in a dredge pond during a struggle with officers responding to a loud noise complaint in August 1990. Franklin claimed the officers used excessive force, botched rescue attempts, and discriminated against Walker on the basis of race. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment after determining there were no genuine issues of material fact, as the record showed the officers acted reasonably without evidence of bias or improper conduct, and it also granted the motion to strike an expert affidavit as inadmissible. The federal claims were dismissed, and the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the remaining pendent state claims for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
This case involved whether Richard and Chantiva Livingston, former partners in the Gold Rush Inn, were personally liable for the partnership's unpaid federal employment taxes from 1986 and 1987 after the IRS collected over $22,000 from them. The plaintiffs sought a refund and a declaration of non-liability, arguing that only partners found 'responsible' under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 could be held individually accountable, while the government relied on 26 U.S.C. § 3403 and state partnership law. The court granted summary judgment to the United States and denied the plaintiffs' motion, holding that partners are jointly and severally liable for partnership debts under Idaho Code § 53-315 regardless of managerial responsibility, and that § 6672 provides an additional but not exclusive collection mechanism. The court rejected the plaintiffs' preemption and estoppel arguments, finding no conflict between state and federal law and no prejudice from the IRS's litigation approach.
This case involved public school students who sought permission to form a Christian club for Bible study, prayer, and fellowship at a secondary school in Twin Falls School District No. 411 after the district had already allowed other non-curriculum student groups to meet on school premises. The students sued under the federal Equal Access Act (EAA), which requires schools receiving federal funds and maintaining a limited open forum to grant equal access to student groups regardless of the content of their speech. The district defended its denial by citing provisions of the Idaho Constitution that bar the use of school property for religious purposes. The court held that the EAA applied and preempted any conflicting state constitutional provisions, entering a declaratory judgment and injunction requiring the district to allow the club. The core reasoning was that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution makes valid federal statutes supreme over state law, and the Supreme Court's prior decision in Westside Community Schools v. Mergens had already upheld the EAA against Establishment Clause challenges.
religious libertyfederal powercivil rightsfree speech
The case involves Moore Publishing claiming copyright infringement by MLS and Big Sky in reproducing real estate firm logos and the arrangement of advertisements in a competing real estate magazine. The court granted summary judgment dismissing Moore's claims that it held valid copyrights in ten preexisting logos due to insufficient originality in the alterations made by Moore, as they did not constitute more than trivial contributions qualifying as derivative works. The court denied summary judgment on Moore's claim that its selection and arrangement of advertisements in the magazine constituted a protectable collective work, finding potential genuine issues of material fact requiring trial.
This case is a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Donald Fetterly challenging his Idaho death sentence for first-degree murder, burglary, and grand theft, as well as related convictions. The petitioner raised multiple claims including the constitutionality of Idaho's 42-day limit for post-conviction petitions in capital cases, improper admission of his confession, violation of due process from use of only his portion of a joint confession, unconstitutionally disproportionate sentencing compared to his co-defendant, denial of a jury sentencing right, vagueness in the definition of an aggravating factor, and a confrontation clause violation from exclusion at the co-defendant's trial and sentencing. The court denied relief on all grounds after addressing each claim on the merits or finding them previously resolved, applying standards such as those from Strickland v. Washington for ineffective assistance and determining that the sentencing procedures and time limits did not violate due process or equal protection. The court lifted its prior stay of execution, allowing state death penalty procedures to proceed.
This case involved plaintiff Dal G. Bradley's request for attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)) and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) after prevailing on a claim for Social Security disability insurance benefits. The Secretary opposed the requests as untimely. The court granted both fee awards, reasoning that the EAJA motion was timely because the Secretary's post-remand decision was not wholly favorable to the claimant, requiring filing under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for district court review, which distinguished the case from Melkonyan v. Heckler. The court found 20.75 hours reasonable and applied a $94 hourly rate adjusted for inflation, resulting in a total award of $2,070.50, with the smaller EAJA amount reimbursing the claimant.
