Table Of Content

^vV IDAHO COURT RULES December 2012 Supplement This pamphletupdates volumes 1 and 2 ofthe 2012 Idaho Court Rules Prepared by the Editorial Staff ofthe Publisher MICHIE IDAHO CODE IDAHO COURT RULES DECEMBER 2012 SUPPLEMENT Compiled Under the Supervision ofthe Idaho Code Commission RICHARD R GOODSON R. DANIEL BOWEN JEREMY R PISCA COMMISSIONERS MAX M. SHEILS, JR. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY MICHIE 701 E. Water St., Charlottesville, VA 22902 www.lexisnexis.com Customer Service: 1-800-833-9844 LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks, and MICHIE is atrademarkofReedElsevierProperties Inc., usedunderlicense. Matthew Bender is a registered trademark ofMatthew Bender Properties Inc. ©2012 State ofIdaho All rights reserved. 5042816 978-0-7698-5093-1 (Pub.42205) PREFACE To better serve our customers, by making our annotations more current, LexisNexis now reads, and creates annotations for, court decisions as they are released by the courts. A consequence ofthis more current reading of cases, as they are posted online on lexis.com, is that the most recent cases annotated maynotyethave printreportercitations. Thesewillbe provided, as they become available, through later publications. This publication contains annotations taken from decisions ofthe Idaho Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, and the appropriate federal courts, postedonlexis.com,withdecisiondatesuptoAugust27, 2012. These cases will be printed in the following reports: Pacific Reporter, 3rd Series Federal Supplement, 2nd Series Federal Reporter, 3rd Series United States Supreme Court Reports, Lawyers' Edition, 2nd Series This pamphlet contains annotations for cases decided since the 2012 edition ofthe Idaho Court Rules. Ifyouhave anyquestions orsuggestions concerningthe Idaho 2012 Court Rules supplement, please write or call toll free at 1-800-833-9844, fax toll free at 1-800-643-1280, or email us at [email protected]. Visit our website at http://www.lexisnexis.com for an online bookstore, technical support, customer service, and other company information. LexisNexis Attn: Customer Service 1275 Broadway Albany NY 12204-2694 December, 2012 ni TABLE OF CONTENTS Rules Page IDAHO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1 IDAHO RULES OF EVIDENCE 17 IDAHO CRIMINAL RULES 23 MISDEMEANOR CRIMINAL RULES 37 IDAHO FAMILY RULES 57 IDAHO COURTADMINISTRATIVE RULES 59 IDAHO RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 61 IDAHO APPELLATE RULES 63 LOCAL RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO 91 LOCAL BANKRUPTCY RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT IN THE DIS- TRICT OF IDAHO 101 RULES OFTHE UNITED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FORTHE NINTH CIRCUIT 107 IDAHO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE — — — Rule 4(a). Process Summons Issuance Time limits. JUDICIALDECISIONS Time Limitation. complaint naming as a defendant the party Six-monthperiod for servingthe summons who raises the—issue of—untimely service. El- and complaint under paragraph (2) com- liottV.Verska, Idaho 271P.3d678,2012 mences running upon the first fiUng of a Ida. LEXIS 2 (2012). Rule 4(d)(2). Service upon individuals. JUDICIALDECISIONS — Analysis —allegedagentalone.Elliottv.Verska, Idaho ApparentAuthority. , 271 P.3d 678, 2012 Ida. LEXIS 2 (2012). Service Requirements. Service Requirements. ApparentAuthority. Noncompliance with Idaho R. Civ, P. Apparentauthorityiscreatedwhenaprin- (4)(d)(4) and this rule is not excused, even cipal voluntarily places an agent in such a though the requirements ofdue process are positionthatareasonableperson, conversant met; themannerofservingprocess cannotbe with the business usages and nature ofthe ignored evenwhen a defendant in some way particular business, is justified in believing receivessuchnoticeofthependinglawsuitas that the agent is acting pursuant to existing would satisfy the requ—irements—of due pro- authority. However, apparent authority can- cess. EUiott V. Verska, Idaho , 271 P.3d notbecreatedbytheactsorstatementsofthe 678, 2012 Ida. LEXIS 2 (2012). Rule 4(d)(4). Service upon domestic or foreign corporations. JUDICIALDECISIONS Analysis ServiceRequirements. Noncomphance with I.R.C.P. (4)(d)(2) and Agent ofCorporation. this rule is not excused, even though the Service Requirements. requirements of due process are met; the Agent ofCorporation. manner ofserving process cannotbe ignored Areceptionistwas not an authorized agent evenwhen a defendant in somewayreceives for service ofprocess for a medical institute, such notice ofthe pending lawsuit as would asshewasnotanofficer,managingorgeneral satisfy the req—uirement—s of due process. El- agent, or any other agent authorized by ap- liottV.Verska, Idaho ,271P.3d678,2012 pointment or by statute to receive service of Ida. LEXIS 2 (2012). —process fo—r the corporation. Elliott v, Verska, Idaho 271 R3d678, 2012 Ida. LEXIS 2 , (2012). — Rule 5(a). Service and filing of pleadings and other papers — Service When required. JUDICIALDECISIONS Service. setaside, evenwhenthemotionandaffidavit Attaching a proposed answer and counter- areproperlyfiledandserved,doesnotconsti- claim to an affidavit supporting a motion to tute filing and service of the answer and Rule 5(d) IDAHO COURT RULES Rule 15(c) counterclaim. The pleadings were not prop- Barraza, 152 Idaho 890, 277 P.3d 337, 2012 erlyservedandadequatenoticeoftheanswer Ida. LEXIS 78 (2012). and counterclaim was not given. Cuevas v. Rule 5(d). Filing. JUDICIALDECISIONS Failure to File counterclaim. The pleadings were not prop- Attaching a proposed answer and counter- erlyservedandadequatenoticeoftheanswer claim to an affidavit supporting a motion to and counterclaim was not given. Cuevas v. setaside, evenwhenthemotionandaffidavit Barraza, 152 Idaho 890, 277 P.3d 337, 2012 areproperlyfiledandserved, doesnotconsti- Ida. LEXIS 78 (2012). tute filing and service of the answer and Rule 5(e). Filing with the court. JUDICIALDECISIONS Failure to File counterclaim. The pleadings were not prop- Attaching a proposed answer and counter- erlyservedandadequatenoticeoftheanswer claim to an affidavit supporting a motion to and counterclaim was not given. Cuevas v. setaside, evenwhenthemotionandaffidavit Barraza, 152 Idaho 890, 277 R3d 337, 2012 areproperlyfiledandserved,doesnotconsti- Ida. LEXIS 78 (2012). tute filing and service of the answer and — Rule 11(a)(2). Successive applications for orders or writs Motions for reconsideration. JUDICIALDECISIONS MotionsforReconsideration. motion to reconsider two days afterthe final In an action for declaratory judgment to judgmentwasissued,itwastimelyandprop- determine whether a road was public or pri- erly before th—e court. —Kepler-Fleenor v. Fre- vate, the district court correctly concluded montCounty, Idaho ,268P.3d1159,2012 that, underparagraph (B), itcouldnotstrike Ida. LEXIS 26 (2012). — anaffidavitasuntimely, sinceitwaspartofa Cite—d i—n: Rock—y Mt. Power v. Jensen, motion to reconsider a summary judgment. Idaho , P.3d ,2012Ida.LEXIS34(Jan. Becauseappellantpropertyownersfiledtheir 26, 2012). Rule 15(c). Relation back ofamendments. JUDICIALDECISIONS Statute ofLimitations. had knowledge of the plaintiff's injury, the An amendment of a complaint to add a operatorhadanyknowledgeofthesuitbefore restaurant operator as a defendant in a slip expiration of the limitations period. Knowl- and fall case, filed more thantwoyears after edge that an injury had occurred is not the thesustainedinjury,didnotrelatebacktothe same as knowledge of the institution of—a wtthiaemsetnwtooh-eeyvoeiradireginlnciaemliitcnaotmtihpoelnasriepncetorriwdoadst,hwfaithleeidr,nedwiitcthahetirened lIadwashuoit—. ,Ke2t7t2erPl3indg5v.27B,u2r0g1e2r KIdian.gLCEoXrpI.S, 62 (2012). that,whiletherestaurantoperatormayhave