Marion Jones Callister

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.

civil rightsprocedure

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.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

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.

business & regulatoryproperty

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.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

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.

healthcareprocedure

This product liability case concerns parents who alleged that their child's Poland’s Syndrome birth defects were caused by the mother's use of the anti-nausea drug Bendectin during pregnancy. Defendants moved for summary judgment, relying on more than 35 epidemiological studies finding no causal connection, while plaintiffs intended to offer expert testimony based on animal studies, chemical analysis, and critiques of those studies. Although three other circuits had held similar plaintiff expert evidence inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 703 in Bendectin cases, this court denied summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact on causation under Idaho law and that the admissibility of the experts' opinions could not be resolved as a matter of law at this stage.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved parents suing International Playtex, Inc. on behalf of their daughter, who allegedly contracted Toxic Shock Syndrome from a Playtex tampon, asserting claims including negligence and strict liability for inadequate warnings and design defects, breach of warranties, emotional distress, violation of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act, and punitive damages. The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing the claims related to inadequate warnings and labeling, but denied the motion as to the remaining claims. The core reasoning was that the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 and FDA regulations under 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a) expressly preempt state tort requirements that are different from or in addition to federal standards, and the FDA's specific tampon warning requirements in 21 C.F.R. § 801.430 conflicted with Idaho's general reasonableness standard for warnings, while no such preemption applied to design, testing, or manufacturing claims lacking federal counterparts.

torts & liabilityhealthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case was a habeas corpus petition by Donald Fetterly challenging his death sentence for first-degree murder, burglary, and grand theft in Idaho. The petitioner argued that pre-trial publicity deprived him of a fair trial, that strict time limits for post-conviction relief violated due process and equal protection, and that the Idaho death penalty statute was unconstitutionally vague in its aggravating circumstances. The court denied the petition after addressing the legal issues, ruling that there was no actual or presumed prejudice from the publicity, that the time limit was constitutional, and that the aggravating circumstances had been properly narrowed by the Idaho Supreme Court and were not vague. The core reasoning relied on the record of voir dire, state precedents upholding the statutes, and the sentencing judge's application of defined standards.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved a distributor, Western Power Sports, suing manufacturer Polaris Industries after Polaris declined to renew separate one-year distributorship agreements for snowmobiles and ATVs, allegedly because the distributor refused to accept a large ATV order amid a depressed market. The distributor claimed the non-renewal constituted an unlawful tying arrangement violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act, Section 3 of the Clayton Act, and parallel Idaho statutes, with additional claims of bad-faith breach and intent to drive the distributor out of business. On summary judgment, the court held there were no genuine issues of material fact on the key antitrust elements, finding the relevant market to be retail snowmobiles where Polaris lacked sufficient power and the tie-in did not substantially lessen competition. The court therefore dismissed the federal and state tying claims, and the remaining counts fell as a result. The decision rested on the lack of evidence meeting the legal standards for tying and the agreements being treated as distinct products.

business & regulatory

Clarence Bolen sued the United States claiming that VA physicians negligently prescribed Stelazine and failed to properly monitor his use of the drug for over ten years, resulting in Tardive Dyskinesia. The court addressed whether the suit was timely filed under the statute of limitations and whether the plaintiff proved negligence in monitoring. It found the claim barred by the statute of limitations and, even if timely, that the Boise VA physicians had no duty to monitor for or warn about Tardive Dyskinesia during 1963-1969 because that specific long-term risk was not known then, while acute and sub-acute side effects were properly addressed through regular prescription refill visits and no complaints arose. The court therefore dismissed the complaint and entered judgment for the government.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

This case involved a family of Mexican nationals, including a temporary legal resident father and a U.S. citizen child, who sought to prevent deportation after an immigration consultant advised them to report to the INS, leading to denial of extended voluntary departure despite claims of extreme hardship and a child's medical needs. The plaintiffs sued the District Director, challenging the denial as arbitrary and capricious and requesting injunctive relief. The court denied the government's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, finding it had authority to review the decision under the Administrative Procedure Act, and granted a preliminary injunction barring deportation until the case is resolved on the merits. The core reasoning was that meaningful standards exist for reviewing voluntary departure decisions, the balance of equities strongly favored the family due to potential separation and health issues, and the plaintiffs raised serious questions on the merits warranting interim relief.

immigration

The case involved associations representing Idaho nursing homes and hospitals seeking a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of federal Pre-Admission Screening and Annual Resident Review (PASARR) requirements under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, which mandate Level I and Level II screenings for mental illness or retardation before admitting patients to nursing facilities participating in Medicaid. The court had previously issued a temporary restraining order allowing delayed screenings but later denied the motion for a preliminary injunction after hearings, lifting the TRO effective May 31, 1989. The core reasoning was that federal law requires states to implement the screenings regardless of federal criteria delays, nursing homes voluntarily participate in Medicaid and thus accept the conditions, the rules do not substantially impair existing contracts, and the screenings serve the public interest by preventing inappropriate placements of vulnerable individuals.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

The case involved the United States seeking to recover costs for cleaning up polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at a former recycling yard in Pocatello, Idaho, under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Individual defendants, members of the McCarty family who held interests in the property, moved for partial summary judgment arguing they were not liable as current owners or operators or at the time of disposal. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(1), finding they were not current owners or operators, but denied it on the claim under § 9607(a)(2), allowing the case to proceed regarding liability at the time of hazardous waste disposal. The reasoning centered on the defendants' lack of involvement in operations and the timing of their ownership interests relative to the disposal and sale of the property.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a farmer, Ronald Rollins, who was convicted by a magistrate under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) after applying registered pesticides to his alfalfa field, resulting in the deaths of migratory geese that ate the treated crops. The district court reviewed the magistrate's factual findings (which were undisputed) de novo as to their legal application and considered whether the strict-liability MBTA could constitutionally be applied to Rollins's conduct. The court reversed the conviction and dismissed the charges, holding that the MBTA is unconstitutionally vague as applied because it provides insufficient notice that ordinary, good-faith farming practices using approved pesticides could constitute a criminal violation. The opinion emphasized that the statute lacks any mens rea requirement, does not specifically address pesticide-related bird deaths, and had never previously been interpreted to criminalize such common agricultural activity in the area.

criminal lawenvironment

The case concerned whether the Bureau of Reclamation was required under NEPA to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement before reducing winter flows below Palisades Dam to 1,000 cubic feet per second or lower during a severe multi-year drought. Plaintiffs, including Trout Unlimited, sought to enjoin the reductions to protect the downstream trout fishery, while the BOR and intervening irrigation districts argued the action was part of routine reservoir operations needed to fulfill storage contracts for over one million acres of farmland. The court found that similar low-flow releases had occurred since the dam's 1957 construction, that the fishery could recover within a few years, and that the economic harm from failing to store irrigation water far exceeded any fishery impacts. It held that no EIS was mandated because the reductions were within the project's authorized purposes and did not constitute a major federal action triggering additional environmental review. The court denied all injunctive relief and entered judgment for the defendants.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned Morrison Knudsen Corporation's lawsuit against shareholder Edward Heil, who acquired over five percent of the company's stock and filed a Schedule 13D statement with the SEC disclosing an investment purpose while noting he was considering seeking board representation. The company sought a preliminary injunction, claiming the filing was misleading about Heil's potential plans for control. After an evidentiary hearing, the court found Heil's testimony credible and determined that his statements reflected only vague ideas without a specific plan or strategy, so the original filing was not materially misleading though an amendment was needed for clarity. The court granted a partial preliminary injunction barring Heil from buying additional shares or exercising influence until he files the proposed amended 13D statement that includes the court's decision as an exhibit, and it reserved ruling on the motion to dismiss pending that filing.

business & regulatory

This case involved a surety company, United Pacific Insurance Co. (UPIC), seeking indemnity from various indemnitors under a 1982 agreement after UPIC posted performance bonds for construction work at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and later settled claims brought by a union for unpaid wages and benefits owed by subcontractors. The indemnitors raised defenses including alleged bad faith by UPIC in settling, lack of timely notice under the Miller Act, potential forgery on one bond, and failure to pursue recovery from bankruptcy estates. The court granted UPIC's motion for summary judgment, holding that the express terms of the indemnity agreement gave UPIC the exclusive right to decide whether to settle claims and that the indemnitors had not posted required collateral to litigate; it also directed entry of final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) because the indemnity claim was separable from remaining issues. The core reasoning centered on strict enforcement of the written indemnity contract rather than implied equitable principles, with no material facts showing bad faith that would bar recovery.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure

This case involves four insurance companies seeking a declaratory judgment that they have no duty to defend or indemnify McCarty’s, Inc. and related parties in an EPA action under CERCLA for cleaning up PCB contamination on a former scrapyard property and in a related state court lawsuit by Pacific Hide & Fur for deceit and indemnification. The court denied the insurers' motions for summary judgment regarding the EPA cleanup action, finding that the owned-property exclusion in the policies does not apply because the EPA complaint alleges imminent endangerment to public health and the environment, which may require measures beyond the insured's property. However, the court granted summary judgment to two insurers in the state court action, holding they owe no duty to defend or indemnify except that one insurer must defend and indemnify on indemnification and contribution claims. The reasoning centered on the strict construction of exclusionary clauses and precedents holding that such exclusions do not bar coverage when underlying claims involve preventing environmental or public health damage.

environmentpropertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved two consolidated diversity actions stemming from a dispute over a commercial agreement: a declaratory judgment suit brought by the Clements and a specific performance and damages action originally filed by Franklin Investment Group that was removed and transferred to federal court in Idaho. After granting summary judgment to the Clements as prevailing parties, the court addressed their motion for attorneys' fees under Idaho Code § 12-120(3). The court awarded the Clements $46,477.50 in fees (after a reduction for some duplication) plus costs, ruling that the underlying transaction qualified as a commercial one because it was not for personal or household purposes and that the statute's mandatory fee provision applied to breach-of-contract claims even when no contract was ultimately found to exist. The court rejected arguments that the statute was limited to cases seeking an amount due, that it was unconstitutionally overbroad, or that an award would be inequitable, noting that Idaho precedent requires giving effect to all statutory language and treats the fee award as mandatory.

procedurebusiness & regulatory