Idaho Appellate Practice

Subscribe to Idaho Appellate Practice via RSS

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.

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

In a post earlier this week, I relayed notes and practice pointers on Idaho appellate practice gathered from An Appellate Practice CLE, held on October 9, 2015. Here are some additional notes from the CLE:

  • First motions for an extension of time to file a brief are granted 99.99% of the time. Typically, extensions are limited to 28 days.
  • For expedited appeals, such as appeals in family law cases brought under Idaho Appellate Rules 11.1 and 12.1, extensions of time to file a brief are usually not granted. See I.A.R. 12.2(e).
  • Briefs before the Idaho Supreme Court and Court of Appeals are limited to 50 pages; the front and back covers, the table of contents, and table of authorities are included in that page count. See I.A.R. 34(a). Motions for an overlength brief seeking between 51 and 60 pages are typically granted by the Clerks’ office. Motions seeking more than 60 pages are addressed by the Idaho Supreme Court.
  • If the Idaho Supreme Court grants a permissive appeal under Idaho Appellate Rule 12, the party seeking to appeal must still file a notice of appeal in the district court.

Continue Reading Notes from ‘An Appellate Practice CLE’ – Part 2: motions for an extension of time, motions for an overlength brief, avoiding delays in appeals, cross-appeals, and more

Must a party seek to “recover” on a commercial transaction before attorney fees are allowed under Idaho Code § 12-120(3)? Stated differently, does an action for declaratory or injunctive relief preclude attorney fees under the statute? The Idaho Supreme Court addressed those questions in Idaho Transportation Department v. Ascorp, Inc., 2015 Opinion No. 94…

The Idaho Supreme Court and Court of Appeals announced their oral argument calendars for the 2015 Fall Term. Official notice was published in the October edition of The Advocate. Case summaries can be found here for the Idaho Supreme Court and here for the Idaho Court of Appeals.

Idaho Supreme Court Oral Argument Calendar…

On October 9, 2015, the Idaho Appellate Practice Section (IAPS) and the University of Idaho College of Law hosted An Appellate Practice CLE in Boise, Idaho. Steve Kenyon, the Clerk of the Idaho Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, spoke on a variety of matters concerning appeals before Idaho’s highest courts. Here are some updates, reminders, and other points of interest:

  • The Idaho Supreme Court is still working with a vendor on an electronic appellate filing system. The date of the launch is still in flux.
  • Until the new system is operational, there is no electronic filing with the Idaho Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. There are three exceptions, however. The Courts will accept the following documents via email: (1) an electronic brief pursuant to Idaho Appellate Rule 34.1 (an electronic brief is in addition to paper copies of the brief); (2) correspondence, such as oral argument notices; and (3) first motions for an extension of time to file a brief.
  • The average time from notice of appeal to a decision in civil cases before the Idaho Supreme Court is 465 days. For the Idaho Court of Appeals, the average time is 380 days. According to Steve Kenyon, those times stay remarkably consistent.
  • The average time from notice of appeal to oral argument before the Idaho Supreme Court is 12 months. The quickest time to oral argument is nine months.

Continue Reading Notes from An ‘Appellate Practice CLE’ – Part 1: electronic filing, average times for disposition of civil appeals, amended judgments, and more

In Krinitt v. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 2015 Opinion No. 89 (Sept. 25, 2015), the Idaho Supreme Court reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a defendant. The decision is a good illustration of the relevance of circumstantial evidence on summary judgment and a basic summary judgment standard: all disputed facts must be liberally construed and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the non-moving party.

The case involved a wrongful death action stemming from a helicopter crash. The plaintiff’s son flew employees of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to survey salmon spawning on the Selway River. The helicopter crashed, and an investigation revealed that a clipboard of one of the Department’s employees struck the tail rotor, causing the crash. The plaintiff claimed the accident was caused by the negligence of the Department or its employees.Continue Reading Idaho Supreme Court reiterates that circumstantial evidence can create a genuine issue of material fact on summary judgment

On October 9, 2015, the Idaho Appellate Practice Section released the fourth edition of the Idaho Appellate Handbook. The Handbook contains 14 chapters focused on Idaho appellate practice. It is provided as a searchable PDF with hyperlinks to statute, rule, and case law citations.

The Handbook’s chapters are:

CHAPTER I         Introduction to the…

It is quite common for a trial court to base a ruling on alternative, independent grounds. It is also quite common for the Idaho Supreme Court to affirm the trial court’s ruling because the appellant fails to challenge one of the alternative grounds. That was the situation in La Bella Vita, LLC v. Shuler et al., 2015 Opinion No. 65 (July 13, 2015). There, the trial court struck supplemental briefing on two independent grounds: first, based on procedure, and second, based on a court order. But on appeal the appellant only challenged the first ground.
Continue Reading If a Trial Court Bases a Ruling on Alternative Grounds, Challenge Each Ground on Appeal

The Idaho Supreme Court and Idaho Court of Appeals amended their respective 2015 Fall Terms.  Official notice of the amended terms was published in the August edition of The Advocate.  The amended terms look like this:

Idaho Supreme Court Regular Fall Term for 2015

Coeur d’Alene ………………………………………………………. August 26, 27

Moscow ………………………………………………………………. August 28…

About the Notice of Appeal Blog

Learn More

Welcome to the Stoel Rives Appellate Law blog, dedicated to providing those in appellate law practices regular updates on significant decisions from courts of appeal within our regions of practice. It is our goal to build out this blog to be a handy resource for both keeping up to date on new decisions and quickly locating information about past decisions.