The Stoel Rives Appellate Law Blog
The Stoel Rives’ Idaho Appellate Practice Blog provides regular updates on appellate practice before the Idaho appellate courts. Our goal is to build a resource on the procedures, rules, and practices of handling appeals before the Idaho Supreme Court and Idaho Court of Appeals. We intend to provide updates on new decisions, rule changes, and other matters of interest effecting practice before Idaho’s appellate courts.
The summaries of the cases on the blog are prepared by Christopher Pooser, who practices in Stoel Rives’ Boise, Idaho, office.
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:
…
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
The Idaho Supreme Court announced a new standard for an award of attorney fees under Idaho Code § 12-121. See Hoffer v. Shappard, 2016 Opinion No. 105 (Idaho Sept. 28, 2016). Section 12-121 reads: “In any civil action, the judge may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party or parties, provided that this section shall not alter, repeal or amend any statute which otherwise provides for the award of attorney’s fees.” Since 1979, Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 54(e)(2) has limited the Idaho courts’ discretion to award attorney fees under the statute to instances where a case was “brought, pursued or defended frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation.”
Not anymore. Under the standard announced in Hoffer, “prevailing parties in civil litigation have the right to be made whole for attorney fees they have incurred ‘when justice so requires.’” Id. at 20. The Court did not offer guidance on the meaning of “when justice so requires.” Because the new standard “may have profound effects on litigants,” it does not become effective until March 1, 2017. Id. at 21. But, notably, the new standard “will have prospective effect, applying to all cases that have not become final as of that date.” Id.
Continue Reading Idaho Supreme Court announces significant change to standard for attorney fees under Idaho Code § 12-121
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…
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…
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 Appellate Rule 5 sets forth procedures for special writs and other proceedings over which the Idaho Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. The Court recently proposed adding five new subsections to the rule. The amendments address the form of the Court’s denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition or issuance of…
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 and Idaho Court of Appeals announced their respective 2016 Spring Terms in the January 2016 edition of The Advocate. Of note, the Supreme Court does not have hearings scheduled in March and will travel to Coeur d’Alene and Lewiston in April, to Idaho Falls and Pocatello in May, and to…
Amendments to Idaho Appellate Rules 11, 11.1, 17, 28, 30, 34.1 and 118 went into effect January 1, 2016. Here is an overview of the amendments:
I.A.R. 11. Appealable judgments and orders. The rule now requires a copy of the final judgment or order to be attached to the notice of appeal.
I.A.R. 11.1. …
