George Martin v. Ed Smith
296 P.3d 367
Idaho2013Background
- Camas County appeals an injunction against enforcement of 2007 zoning amendments (Ordinances 150 & 153; Resolutions 96 & 103) and challenges Martin's standing under Martin I.
- Martin filed suit in late 2005 seeking to permanently enjoin the 2007 amendments; district court granted partial relief and later injunctions related to 2007 amendments.
- Martin I held Martin lacked standing to challenge the 2008 amendments; the 2007 and 2008 amendments are substantially identical and relate to Martin's Camas County property.
- Martin sought attorney fees under I.C. § 12-117; district court awarded fees against Camas County, which Camas County appeals.
- The issue on appeal includes whether Camas County is entitled to fees, whether Martin had a reasonable basis for his action, and related Rule 11 considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Martin I controlling authority? | Martin I controls relief and standing. | Martin I determines standing; district court rulings should align. | Martin I controlling; standing deficient, injunction reversed. |
| Whether Camas County was entitled to attorney fees under I.C. § 12-117 | Martin’s action lacked reasonable basis; fees warranted. | Martin lacked standing; but issue waived; fees not warranted on appeal. | County not entitled to attorney fees; waiver and standing issues negate award. |
| Attorney fees on appeal | Martin acted unreasonably; sanctions possible. | Martin acted reasonably; sanctions unwarranted. | No sanctions; Martin's conduct reasonable; no appellate fees awarded. |
| District court injunction against 2007 amendments | Injunction appropriate under Martin I analysis. | Injunction improper given standing issues and controlling authority. | Injunction reversed; Martin I controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin I, 150 Idaho 508 (2011) (standing required to prove palpable injury; Martin lacked standing)
- City of Osburn v. Randel, 152 Idaho 906 (2012) (abuse of discretion standard for §12-117 appeals recognized)
- Fischer v. City of Ketchum, 141 Idaho 349 (2005) (earlier approach to reviewing §12-117 applications)
- Rincover v. State, Dept. of Fin., 132 Idaho 547 (1999) (historical development of reviewing §12-117 standards)
- State v. Zichko, 129 Idaho 259 (1996) (waiver doctrine for issues on appeal)
- Estes v. Barry, 132 Idaho 82 (1998) (arguments require authority to avoid waiver)