In Baughman v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2017 Opinion 50 (May 26, 2017) (slip op.), the Supreme Court addressed a matter of first impression related to the statute of limitations in Idaho Code § 5-214A. In this case, the plaintiffs filed suit to prevent foreclosure by arguing that the foreclosure proceeding was barred by the
Anna Courtney
Cases of First Impression Part Two: Limits of Sovereign Immunity
By Anna Courtney on
Posted in Idaho Appellate Practice, Idaho Supreme Court
This Spring, the Idaho Supreme Court issued several opinions addressing issues of first impression. Below are the highlights from a second opinion addressing such an issue, Tucker v. State.
In Tucker v. State, 2017 Opinion 38 (Apr. 28, 2017) (slip op.), as a matter of first impression, the Supreme Court concluded that sovereign…
Idaho Supreme Court Refuses to Modify the Workers Compensation Exclusive Remedy Doctrine
By Anna Courtney & James Dale on
Posted in Idaho Appellate Practice, Idaho Supreme Court
In order to provide near certain relief for employees injured in the course of employment, the Idaho Worker’s Compensation Act withdrew the common law remedies workers traditionally held against their employers. This compromise limits employers’ liability in exchange for providing sure and speedy relief for injured workers and is encapsulated in Idaho Code § 72-209, or the exclusive remedy provision. Recently, in two closely watched cases, Marek v. Hecla, Limited, 2016 Opinion 132 (November 18, 2016) and Barrett v. Hecla Mining Co., 2016 Opinion 133 (November 18, 2016), the Idaho Supreme Court provided guidance on a narrow exception to this provision under Idaho Code § 72-209(3). Section 72-209(3) allows an employee to pursue common law claims against an employer in a narrow circumstance: “where the injury or death is proximately caused by the willful or unprovoked physical aggression of the employer, its officers, agents, servants or employees.”
Continue Reading Idaho Supreme Court Refuses to Modify the Workers Compensation Exclusive Remedy Doctrine
Idaho Courts Not Authorized to Appoint Co-Guardians of a Minor
By Anna Courtney on
Posted in Idaho Appellate Practice
In the case of Does I v. Does II, Docket No. 43651-2015, 2016 Opinion No. 56 (May 27, 2016), the Idaho Supreme Court vacated a judgment that appointed two sets of part-time co-guardians for a minor child and set forth a visitation schedule between the sets of guardians. The case originated after the minor…
Idaho Supreme Court Imposes I.A.R. 11.2 Sanctions Sua Sponte
By Anna Courtney on
Posted in Idaho Appellate Practice
In the case of Akers v. Mortensen, 2016 Opinion No. 50 (April 27, 2016), the Idaho Supreme Court imposed I.A.R. 11.2 sanctions sua sponte against an attorney who was no longer representing a party to the appeal.
I.A.R. 11.2 provides that every document filed with the Court must be signed. This signature constitutes a…
Objections to Attorney Fees Must Be Particular to Avoid Waiving Issue On Appeal
By Anna Courtney on
Posted in Idaho Appellate Practice
The Idaho Supreme Court recently instructed that to preserve issues regarding the reasonableness of attorney fee awards for appeal, objections must be stated with particularity in a motion to disallow costs. In Fagen, Inc. v. Rogerson Flats Wind Park, LLC, 2016 Opinion No. 8 (Jan. 26, 2016), following judgment, the plaintiff filed a memorandum…
Idaho Supreme Court Is Bound by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Interpretations of Federal Law
By Anna Courtney on
Posted in Idaho Appellate Practice
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court in a per curiam decision, reversed the Idaho Supreme Court’s decision on an award of attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. In the case of James v. City of Boise, 158 Idaho 713, 351 P.3d 1171 (2015), the Idaho Supreme Court granted attorney fees to the City…
The Idaho Supreme Court Just Awarded Your Client Attorney Fees on Appeal; Don’t Forget to Timely File a Memorandum of Costs
By Anna Courtney on
Posted in Idaho Appellate Practice
Two recent cases before the Idaho Supreme Court highlight the procedure—and the importance of following the procedure—for securing an award of attorney fees on appeal.
The first case is City of Challis v. Consent of the Governed Caucus, 2015 Opinion No. 92 (Sept. 25, 2015). There, the Court awarded attorney fees and costs to the Caucus. In doing so, the Court clarified that it was the Supreme Court’s duty, not the duty of the district court, “to determine an appropriate award of fees and costs incurred on appeal . . . .” The Court explained: “In the event that the Caucus timely submits a memorandum of costs and fees” under I.A.R. 40(c) and 41(d), the Court is responsible for evaluating “that memorandum, and any objections thereto, to determine an appropriate award of attorney fees and costs.” (Emphasis added.) Pursuant to the Idaho Appellate Rules, a timely submission means that a memorandum for costs and attorney fees is filed “[w]ithin 14 days of the filing and announcement of the opinion on appeal.” See I.A.R. 40(c), 41(d).Continue Reading The Idaho Supreme Court Just Awarded Your Client Attorney Fees on Appeal; Don’t Forget to Timely File a Memorandum of Costs