Candace Elliott v. Blair Olsen
Background
- On July 24, 2011, Candace (Andi) Elliott photographed thin horses on/near a public road; a neighbor reported her for trespass (the neighbor claimed she was on his property).
- Deputy John Clements investigated, collected witness statements and photos, and prepared a probable-cause affidavit noting a prior April 20, 2011 trespass warning.
- The Jefferson County Prosecutor’s Office (Robin Dunn assigned to Amelia Sheets) charged Elliott with trespass; Elliott was acquitted after a bench trial.
- Elliott sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting malicious prosecution and related claims against county employees, the sheriff’s department, county commissioners, and others; most state-law claims were dismissed earlier on procedural grounds.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding no admissible evidence that defendants acted outside their discretion or presented false information; county- and policy-based claims lacked evidentiary support.
- Elliott appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding Elliott failed to present cogent argument or authority to show a genuine issue of material fact and declined to award defendants attorney fees though awarded costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was summary judgment proper on Elliott’s §1983 malicious-prosecution claim? | Elliott contended record contained sufficient evidence (bias, prior prosecutions, false affidavits) to create genuine issues for trial. | Defendants argued evidence did not contradict probable-cause affidavit or show misconduct; immunity/discretionary-function defenses applied. | Affirmed: no genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment proper. |
| Could the court consider pre-2011 conduct to show pattern/motive? | Elliott urged the court to consider earlier incidents as relevant background showing recurring baseless prosecutions. | Defendants and court: pre-2011 claims were time-barred by the statute of limitations and thus not admissible to defeat summary judgment. | Held: Court may not rely on time‑barred conduct; such evidence was not considered. |
| Did appellants preserve and adequately brief alleged trial-court errors (bias, timing of depositions, findings)? | Elliott argued multiple procedural and factual errors by the district court (failure to consider bias, granting SJ before depositions, factual mistakes). | Defendants maintained Elliott failed to present particularized assignments of error or legal authority; issues were inadequately briefed. | Held: Claims waived/unsupported on appeal for lack of particularity, argument, and authority; appellate court will not scour the record. |
| Are defendants entitled to attorney fees on appeal? | N/A (Elliott opposed fee award implicitly by continuing appeal). | Defendants sought fees under Idaho statutes, arguing the appeal was unreasonable/bad faith. | Held: Fees denied — appeal not frivolous; costs awarded to defendants as prevailing parties. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. Conchemco, Inc., 111 Idaho 851, 727 P.2d 1279 (Ct. App. 1986) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
- Stoddart v. Pocatello Sch. Dist. No. 25, 149 Idaho 679, 239 P.3d 784 (2010) (movant’s burden in summary judgment)
- Dunnick v. Elder, 126 Idaho 308, 882 P.2d 475 (Ct. App. 1994) (establishing absence of evidence on an element can meet movant’s burden)
- State v. Zichko, 129 Idaho 259, 923 P.2d 966 (1996) (appellate waiver for issues unsupported by argument/authority)
- Suits v. Idaho Bd. of Prof’l Discipline, 138 Idaho 397, 64 P.3d 323 (2003) (court will not search record for error)
- Monell v. City of New York Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under §1983)