Aiono v Department of Corrections

Aiono sought review of the administrative decision upholding her termination. The panel reversed. It held the decision under review was law like as it was based on interpretation of written policy. It held the policy in question does not in fact prohibit the conduct alleged here namely having contact with an immediate family member as it prohibits contact with an offenders family no an employee’s family and exempts an employee’s immediate family form the ban on social relationships with offenders and the policy sates it is not intended to interfere with employees interactions with immediate family and the policy does not set out a timeline to fill out a contact disclosure form and thus termination for not immediate filing out the form was unlawful.

DeAvila v DeAvila

Wife appealed the property division provisions of the divorce decree. The panel affirmed. It held that while there was conflicting evidence on the issue of who owned a car that was totaled and thus who was entitled to the insurance proceeds, the district court did not clearly err in relying on the contract of purchase and original application for tile to conclude the car was marital property and thus the proceeds were likewise martial property. It held wife failed to cite any authority that the collateral source rule applies in the family law setting, that doing so would serve the purposes of the rule or how the rule would apply when husband is an owner of the car and the proceeds. It finally held there was no clear error in finding a corporation’s stock would not sell at the value proposed by wife due to a thin market and the lack of assets of the corporation.

State v Holm

Holm appealed his negligent homicide conviction arguing the district court erroneously limited voir dire. The panel reversed and remanded. It held that because the case involved a serous car crash, Holm was entitled to individual questioning of potential jurors who had been involved in serious car crash or who had family or close friends so involved in order to flush out bias and have information to guide preemptory challenges and the district court’s refusal to do so and inadequate follow up questioning relying solely on self-identification of bias prejudiced Holm and a new trial is necessary.

State v Alvarez

Alvarez appealed his sentence. The panel, with one judge concurring in result, affirmed. The majority held that the district court is presumed to apply the correct sentencing standards, including a proportionality standard applicable here, and Alvarez presented no evidence that the court failed to do so, failed to raise the issue below and his other arguments go to the balancing of factors which is insufficient to prove error. Voros concurred in result arguing the proportionality argument was not preserved.

State v Bird

Bird appealed the restitution order portion of his criminal sentence arguing the district court failed to offset the value of inventory from the award. The panel affirmed. It held that at the time of the discovery of the securities fraud here, Bird’s ownership interest in the dissolved corporation had no value, the district court properly held the initial amount of restitution is the amount victim’s investment, that there was no clear error in setting the value of the inventory of the dissolved corporation at 0 as the evidence supported the conclusion that significant efforts would be needed to sell the product, victims put in two years of effort without success and the product was eventually recalled by the government, Bird bore the burden to prove the offset and failed to do so and the evidence as a whole supports the award amount.

I-D Electric, Inc. v Gillman

Gillman appealed the judgment to Electric on her wrongful lien claim and its breach of contract claim and an award of attorney fees to Electric. The panel affirmed din part, reverse din part and remanded. It affirmed on the wrongful lien claim holding that the lien here was authorized by statute and Electric had a  good faith basis to file namely that it performed services on Gillman’s property and was not paid and the use of an incorrect address was an inadvertent clerical error. It heled that there was an enforceable contract for services as the parties agreed on what needed to be done, agreed to a cost-plus structure, Gillman was an experienced businesswoman in the construction industry and signed a work order. However, the panel held that the price term was not agreed upon and thus the price was limited to the reasonable price for the materials and services and the case was remanded to determine the factual issue of reasonable price. As to attorney fees, the panel first held it had jurisdiction over Gillman’s claim for attorney fees as she raise the issue before final judgment was entered, that the district court failed to analyze whether Gillman was entitled to attorney fees under the wrongful lien statute and determined she was as the district court dismissed the lien claim and thus remand for calculation of Gillman’s fees was necessary and held the district court properly awarded attorney fees to Electric  under the fee provision in the work order. It finally held that Electric was entitled to attorney fees on appeal as the main rulings of the district court were affirmed and its fee award is significantly higher than Gillman’s will be.

Stephenson v Elison, Neilson and Alpine School District

Stephenson appealed summary judgment to the defendants on limitations grounds in his tort claims arising from alleged sex abuse by Elison. The panel dismissed the appeal holding the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Stephenson’s claims as statute of limitations had run by the time Stephenson field a tort claim notice with district, declined to decide whether the internal discovery rule was satisfied as Stephenson failed to prove equitable tolling as to any claim because the allegations in the complaint demonstrate Stephenson knew all material facts before the running of the limitations periods and the statements by a doctor in support of his equitable tolling demonstrate that Stephenson had active memory of the abuse and did such things as confront Elison and obtaining his signed confession and complaining to the police department which are inconsistent with amnesia about the abuse. It finally fiofed the denial of additional time for discovery as Stephenson had sufficient time to get his expert’s statements into the record and he failed to identify what more he would have submitted with additional time.