Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Security Financial Fund, LLC, ("Security Financial") extended to Byron and Marilynn Thomason ("the Thomasons") a series of loans evidenced by five promissory notes, which were secured by three deeds of trust and two mortgages on real property. As a result of the Thomasons' non-payment on two prornissory notes secured by the mortgages, Security Financial foreclosed on those notes. While the foreclosure was still pending, the Thomasons filed a separate action against Security Financial and others, addressing all the promissory notes executed in favor of Security Financial by the Thomasons. That action sought recovery for breach of contract and fraud, among other theories. Both actions were consolidated. On appeal from the district court's decision to grant Security Financial's Motion for Summary Judgment with regard to the claims that the Thomasons asserted in their fraud case, the Thomasons contended, among other things, that the district court lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction to foreclose on the secured property and abused its discretion. The Supreme Court concluded that all of the Thomasons' claims were waived or frivolous, and accordingly affirmed the Final Judgment in favor of Security Financial.

Defendants-Appellants David and Pamela Randel appealed the denial of their request for attorney fees under I.C. 12-117, following the dismissal of a zoning enforcement action brought against them by the City of Osburn (City). The district court found the Randels to be the prevailing party but held they were not entitled to a fee award because the City had not pursued the action frivolously or without foundation. The Randels appealed to the Supreme Court and upon review, the Court affirmed: "the court discussed that, having considered the parties' arguments and the issues raised, it 'remain[ed] convinced that the action was not brought frivolously or without foundation.' That conclusion is eminently reasonable, especially since the City moved to dismiss the action when it failed to prevail on its motion for summary judgment. The court was presented with relatively little information about the merits of the action, and the arguments it did consider were fairly characterized as non-frivolous. The court acted within the bounds of its discretion and reached its decision through an exercise of reason. It, therefore, did not abuse its discretion when it denied the Randels' fee request."

At issue in this case was a district court's grant of a motion for voluntary dismissal of a suit filed by Fern Peterson against Cecil and Yu Wen Davis, Kevin and Sherri Murray, David Lawrence and Private Wilderness, LLC (collectively, Private Wilderness). The issues arose from Peterson's attempt to sell property to the Davises, Murray and Lawrence. Private Wilderness asserted an easement over the property. Ultimately the case ended with the dismissal of a third-party complaint filed by Private Wilderness against Robert and Nancy Peterson (the Petersons). In resolving the appeal, the Supreme Court addressed issues raised by Private Wilderness concerning whether the district court erred when it concluded there was no prevailing party when it granted the voluntary dismissal. The Court also addressed the Petersons' cross-appeal, in which they argued that the district court erred in denying their motion for reconsideration of their I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and 12(c) motion to dismiss on the basis that it was moot, and by not addressing their pending summary judgment motion at the time of dismissal. Upon review, the Supreme Court vacated in part and remanded, upholding the district court's discretion concluding no prevailing party, but found the court erred by denying the motion for reconsideration.

When "Child" was three years and seven months old, his Mother was arrested while Child was in her care. Since Father was already incarcerated, the state declared Child to be in imminent danger. Child was placed in the the Department of Health and Welfare's custody, and a child protection case was initiated. The matter proceeded to trial, after which the trial court granted the Department's petition to terminate Father-Petitioner John Doe's parental rights. Father appealed. Finding clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father's parental rights were in Child's best interests, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision to terminate.

Plaintiff-Appellant Robert Arambarri was Regional Director of Region VI with the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. In this capacity, he was a non-classified, at-will employee serving at the pleasure of the Director of the Department. Due to budget reductions, four of the seven regional director positions, including Plaintiff's position, were eliminated by the Director. Responsibility for the seven administrative regions was consolidated in the remaining three regional directors. Plaintiff contended that the Director did not have the statutory authority to abolish those positions. He further contended that the Idaho Board of Health and Welfare did not properly concur with a formal vote in the elimination of the four regional director positions. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not err when it granted the Director's Motion for Summary Judgment and the denial of Plaintiff's Motion to Strike did not affect his substantial rights. The Court affirmed the judgment in favor of the Department.

Plaintiff-Appellant Alesha Ketterling alleged that she slipped on snow in the parking lot of the Burger King restaurant in Burley, Idaho, on December 22, 2006. BDSB of Western Idaho, L.C. had the contractual right to operate the restaurant under a franchise agreement with Burger King. HB Boys managed the Burley Burger King under a contract with BDSB. According to Plaintiff, her fall aggravated an existing knee injury. Plaintiff alleged that Burger King’s failure to make the premises safe was negligent and entitled her to damages for her injuries. HB Boys moved for summary judgment, contending that Plaintiff failed to timely join it as a defendant. The district court agreed and granted the motion. The court subsequently granted summary judgment to Burger King, holding that, as franchisor, it did not control the premises where Plaintiff fell and had no vicarious liability for her injuries. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether either Defendant was entitled to summary judgment. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants.

Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellant David Oakes, M.D. was employed as a cardiologist by Defendant-Counterclaimant-Respondent Boise Heart Clinic Physicians, PLLC (BHC) from January 2000 until the end of July 2008, when he left to pursue other employment opportunities. While employed by BHC, Plaintiff had an employment agreement that entitled him to half the adjusted gross charges he generated. Because of his complicated arrangements with other service providers, Plaintiff's final payment was not calculated until after his departure. After his employment ended, Plaintiff corresponded with BHC regarding his final payment. Plaintiff never received payment. Instead, he received a series of letters that detailed the evolving computation of his final payment. BHC's last letter to Plaintiff included a demand for repayment. Plaintiff then sued claiming that BHC still owed him money under the employment agreement. In rendering its verdict, the jury was given a choice between three special verdict forms that corresponded with the three possible verdicts: one finding that neither party is entitled to recover from the other; one that finding that BHC owed money to Plaintiff; and one finding that Plaintiff owed money to BHC. The jury returned with a verdict in favor of Plaintiff, and against BHC, that awarded Plaintiff $2,043.92. Ultimately the district court entered a final judgment that awarded Plaintiff $2,043.92 and declared that neither party was the prevailing party for purposes of costs and attorney fees. Plaintiff appealed the "prevailing party" decision to the Supreme Court. e sought. The district court entered a judgment conferring to Oakes the amount awarded by the jury, but found that neither party was the prevailing party for purposes of costs or attorney fees. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the district court abused its discretion by not finding Plaintiff to be the prevailing party. The case was remanded for a determination of costs and fees.

Claimant Brooke Stark worked for Assisted Living Concepts, Inc. from 2008 to 2010 as a "residence director" of one of Assisted Living's facilities. Claimant was called into the sales director's office one day, and the two talked about a rumor that one of Assisted Living's other facilities was imminently closing. Later that evening, Assisted Living's divisional director of human resources called Claimant to ask where Claimant heard of the closing rumor. Claimant did not disclose her source. Five minutes following that call, Assisted Living's chief executive officer called Claimant (with the director of HR on the call) to ask about the rumor. Claimant said she talked to a number of people, but that she did not want to share the information. The CEO emphasized the importance of knowing who started the rumor so that the company could reassure those involved that the facility in question would not close. Still declining to reveal her source, the CEO suspended Claimant. The human resources director, after a little investigation, found that Claimant violated company policy by refusing a direct order from her supervisor. Claimant was then terminated in the fall of 2010. The issue before the Supreme Court involved whether Claimant's refusal to respond to the CEO's question. The Industrial Commission held that Claimant's refusal to obey the direct order did not constitute misconduct under the Employment Security Law. The Supreme Court held as a matter of law, Claimant's conduct was indeed misconduct under the Employment Security Law, and reversed the Industrial Commission.

Defendants-Appellants Stanley and Catherine Jensen, as trustees of the Stanley and Catherine Jensen Family Living Trust, appealed the district court's decision that granted Plaintiff-Respondent Rocky Mountain Power's motion for summary judgment. Defendants are record owners of a cattle ranch that lies within a corridor established by the Utility for a 345 kilovolt transmission line. The Utility sought a perpetual easement and a right of way for the Utility and its successors and assigns to locate, construct, reconstruct, operate, and maintain a 150 foot wide high-voltage overhead power line utility corridor through the eastern part of Defendants' property. In 2008, Defendants entered into an Occupancy Agreement with the Utility, waiving all defenses to the Utility's acquisition of the easement, except the claim of just compensation. Upon execution of the Agreement, Defendants were paid $215,630 which would be deducted from any final determination of just compensation for the easement. Under the terms of the Occupancy Agreement, if just compensation was determined to be less than $215,630, Defendants were not required to return the difference. The parties were unable to reach an agreement for just compensation within a specified time, so the Utility filed its Complaint in early 2009, seeking a decree of condemnation, an award of easement, and specific performance of the Occupancy Agreement. The Utility filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that Defendants did not identify any expert witnesses or laid a proper foundation for any probative evidence of just compensation. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Defendants failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact to establish the fair market value of their property. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment.

The constitutionality of "Plan L 87," a legislative redistricting plan adopted by the Commission on Redistricting for reapportionment, was challenged and brought before the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Court found that the Plan complied with the strictures of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause of the federal constitution. However, the Plan did not comply with Article III, section 5 of the Idaho Constitution in that it did not "divide counties only to the extent that [they] must be divided to comply with the Federal Constitution." Furthermore, the Plan did not "avoid dividing counties whenever possible in violation of Idaho Code section 72-1506(5)." The Court did not order the Commission to adopt any one redistricting plan: "The commission certainly has the discretion to reject plans that have been submitted and draw boundaries in another manner that complies with both Constitutions." The Court directed the commission to reconvene and adopt a revised plan.