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…

The Idaho State Bar recently published the August edition of The Advocate. The August edition was sponsored by the Idaho Appellate Practice Section and includes the following articles on appellate practice:

  • To Appeal or Not Appeal: That is the Question, by Christine Salmi
  • The Benefits of Engaging an Experienced and Skilled Appellate Lawyer

…

In a recent post, we discussed Chavez v. Stokes, 2015 Opinion No. 64 (July 7, 2015), and the new standard of review governing the reasonableness of medical treatment in workers’ compensation cases. Chavez is also noteworthy for another reason: the Idaho Supreme Court granted attorney fees on appeal to the respondent worker because…

In Chavez v. Stokes, 2015 Opinion No. 64 (July 7, 2015), the Idaho Supreme Court overturned prior precedent holding that the reasonableness of medical treatment in workers’ compensation cases is a question of law subject to free review. According to the Court, the Idaho Industrial Commission’s determination of reasonableness should be reviewed as a finding of fact under the substantial and competent evidence standard.

Chavez concerns an injured worker who was transported to a hospital by Life Flight. After the worker received a bill for the cost, he filed a complaint for workers’ compensation with the Commission. The employer disputed whether the Life Flight transport was reasonable under Idaho Code § 72-432(1) and whether he was responsible for the cost.
Continue Reading Is the Reasonableness of Medical Treatment in Workers’ Compensation Cases a Question of Law or a Question of Fact for the Purposes of Appellate Review?

Earlier this year, we addressed the Idaho Supreme Court’s frustration with the trial courts’ continuing failure to enter final judgments in compliance with Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 54(a). See posts here and here. As a result, on February 12, 2015, the Court issued an order stating that “any judgment, decree or order entered…

Every now and then, the Idaho Supreme Court will address issues that, although not addressed by the trial court, may arise on remand. The Court has that authority under Idaho Code § 1-205, which states: “[I]f a new trial be granted, the court shall pass upon and determine all the questions of law involved in the case presented upon … appeal, and necessary to the final determination of the case.” The Court’s decision in Doe v. State of Idaho, 2015 Opinion No. 62 (June 30, 2015), is a good illustration of the effect of that statute.

In Doe, Doe petitioned for a declaratory judgment on whether he was required to register with the Idaho Sex Offender Registry because of a prior Washington offense. Idaho law requires a person to register with the state’s sexual offender registry when convicted in another state for an offense “substantially equivalent” to an offense identified in the Idaho Sexual Offender Registration Notification Act.
Continue Reading New Decision Illustrates When the Idaho Supreme Court Will Address Legal Issues That Were Not Addressed by the Trial Court

Can there be a prevailing party when an action is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice?  According to the Idaho Supreme Court, the answer is yes.  Charney v. Charney, 2015 Opinion No. 59 (June 23, 2015), is a decision that should serve as a note of caution for Idaho litigators.

Two months following their divorce, Dennis Charney initiated contempt proceedings against his ex-wife, Judy Charney, for allegedly violating their property settlement agreement.  Judy denied the allegations and the matter was set for a hearing.  Two weeks prior to the hearing, Dennis filed a motion to dismiss the contempt proceedings, which the magistrate granted, dismissing the matter without prejudice.
Continue Reading Idaho Supreme Court Awards Attorney Fees to a Prevailing Party Where Contempt Proceedings Were Dismissed Without Prejudice

Amendments to Rules 11 and 12.4 of the Idaho Appellate Rules go into effect on July 1, 2015. The amendments relate to appeals from the Idaho Industrial Commission.

I.A.R. 11 addresses appellate judgments and orders. The amendments add a new provision, Rule 11(d)(2), that allows an immediate appeal “[f]rom any order of the Industrial Commission…

The Idaho Supreme Court and Idaho Court of Appeals published official notice of their respective 2015 Fall Terms in the June/July edition of The Advocate. The terms look like this:

Idaho Supreme Court Regular Fall Term for 2015

Coeur d’Alene ……………………………………………………………………… August 25, 26, 27

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

Boise (Boise State University) ………………………………………………….…

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.