The facts. The Idaho Department of Labor found that Nathaniel Sheehan was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits and ordered him to repay benefits that he had received. During Sheehan’s initial protest, the Department advised Sheehan that it would email updates to him, but the Department instead mailed a notice of telephonic hearing to Sheehan’s
Idaho Supreme Court
Idaho Supreme Court Update: Gray v. Gray
By Christopher Pooser, Cory Carone & Andrea Carone on
Posted in Idaho Appellate Practice, Idaho Supreme Court
The facts. Mom and Dad were married, had a child, and divorced. As part of the divorce, the parties reached a visitation arrangement that gave Mom primary custody of the child and Dad visitation. Mom later relocated to Costa Rica with the child. Mom made the decision to relocate unilaterally, without informing Dad and…
Idaho Supreme Court Update: Carver v. Hornish
By Christopher Pooser, Cory Carone & Andrea Carone on
Posted in Idaho Appellate Practice, Idaho Supreme Court
The facts. A father allegedly consented to a sham marriage for his minor daughter to evade the magistrate court’s jurisdiction over a custody dispute with his ex-wife. The mother requested expedited relief to stop the sham marriage, but the magistrate court did not enter an order stopping the father from consenting to the marriage…
Cases of First Impression Part Three: Statute of Limitations for Foreclosure
By Anna Courtney on
Posted in Idaho Appellate Practice, Idaho Supreme Court
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…
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 Addresses Issues of First Impression
By Christopher Pooser 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 one of these opinions, Westover v. Cundick. We’ll discuss the other cases that have addressed new issues in the coming weeks.
In Westover v. Cundick, 2017 Opinion 33 (Apr. 14, 2017) (slip op.), the…
Idaho Supreme Court Justice candidates are announced
By Christopher Pooser on
Posted in Idaho Appellate Practice, Idaho Supreme Court
Today the Idaho Judicial Council announced 15 candidates for the position of Idaho Supreme Court Justice. The position was created with the retirement of Justice Daniel Eismann. The candidates include one Idaho Court of Appeals judge, six district court judges, and eight practicing lawyers. They are:
- BEVAN, G. RICHARD, is a District Judge of the
…
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