March 2015

We recently posted blog entries on the continuing saga of Idaho’s final judgment rule. See Feb. 9, 2015 Post; Feb. 12, 2014 Post. As discussed there, the Idaho Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that it will not hear an appeal unless a proper final judgment is entered under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure (“I.R.C.P.”) 54(a). The Court has also proposed rule amendments to I.R.C.P. 54(a) and Idaho Appellate Rules (“I.A.R.”) 11, 11.1, and 17 that further emphasize the critical importance of securing a final judgment that complies with I.R.C.P. 54(a):

I.R.C.P. 54(a) – the proposed changes require a “partial judgment” or an “amended judgment” to also comply with the requirements for the contents of a “judgment.”

I.A.R. 11 – the proposed changes require a copy of the judgment or order appealed from to be attached to the notice of appeal.

I.A.R. 11.1 – the proposed changes require a copy of the judgment granting or denying a petition for adoption to be attached to the notice of appeal.

I.A.R. 17 – the proposed changes require the notice of appeal to “have attached to it a copy of the judgment or order appealed from.” The form of a notice of appeal must include the following language: “A copy of the judgment or order being appealed is attached to this notice, as well as a copy of the final judgment if this is an appeal from an order entered after final judgment.”

The Court has also proposed fundamental changes to I.R.C.P. 54(b)(1), as those changes limit when a trial court can enter a certificate of final judgment (also known as a “Rule 54(b) certificate”) in an action that is not fully resolved.
Continue Reading Proposed Amendments to Idaho Court Rules Emphasize the Absolute Importance of Securing a Final Judgment and Fundamentally Change When a Party Can Obtain an I.R.C.P. 54(B) Certificate

LuAnn Shubert (“Shubert”) filed a workers’ compensation claim with the Idaho Industrial Commission (the “Commission”). Shubert’s claim was heard by a Commission referee, who excluded two of her exhibits during the hearing. For the most part, the referee denied her claim, and the Commission approved and adopted the referee’s findings of fact. Shubert appealed. One

The Idaho Supreme Court’s decisions in Jayo Development, Inc. v. Ada County Board of Equalization, 2015 Opinion No. 25 (Feb. 26, 2015) and Arnold v. City of Stanley, 2015 Opinion No. 23 (Feb. 26, 2015), add something for appellate attorneys to consider when involved in proceedings where a person is adverse to a

Nampa Education Ass’n v. Nampa School District. No. 131, 2015 Opinion No. 22 (Feb. 26, 2015), is yet another recent case involving a request for attorney fees under Idaho Code § 12-117. There the Idaho Supreme Court refused to consider the request because the Nampa Education Association, the prevailing party on appeal, failed to