Morgan v. New Sweden Irrigation District, 368 P.3d 990

Background

Morgan owns property bordering New Sweden’s Sinkhole Irrigation Canal; Idaho law grants irrigation districts a statutory easement for canal maintenance (I.C. § 42-1102).
Dispute arose after New Sweden mowed canal banks on Morgan’s land; Morgan sued for negligent damage; New Sweden counterclaimed for declaratory relief establishing its easement scope.
District court (2012) held New Sweden has a 16-foot easement on each side of the canal, could remove vegetation within it, and Morgan must remove encroachments; this Court affirmed but remanded to clarify precisely where the 16-foot measurement begins.
On remand, Morgan sought a jury trial and to introduce new evidence (brochures, bylaws, photos, new board-member testimony); the district court restricted evidence to the prior record and issued a judgment locating the measurement point at the outside toe of the berm/where land begins to level out.
Morgan appealed again raising jury-right, admission-of-new-evidence, sufficiency/ incorporation of prior judgment, limits on removal/use of equipment, and fees; the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the remand judgment and awarded attorney’s fees to New Sweden.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to jury trial on remand	Morgan argued factual issues remaining entitled him to a jury.	New Sweden argued the remand issue was equitable — declaratory/easement terms — so no jury right.	No jury right: remand concerned an equitable question (where to measure the easement).
Admission of new evidence on remand	Morgan sought to introduce brochures, bylaws, photos, and new witnesses to define measurement point.	New Sweden and the court argued remand was limited to a narrow question and the record was adequate; procedural defects in subpoenas.	No abuse of discretion in excluding new evidence; evidence was outside remand scope or procedurally defective.
Whether the remand judgment had to incorporate/redo prior findings (length, access, encroachments, removal responsibilities)	Morgan contended the court should restate or refine all easement aspects for certainty.	New Sweden argued prior judgment was affirmed; remand limited to single measurement point; prior holdings remain binding.	Court did not err: remand was narrowly limited to the point-of-measurement; prior judgment and the remand judgment read together define the easement.
Limitations on removal/use of equipment	Morgan argued removal should be limited to encroachments that materially interfere and equipment use limited in scope/time.	New Sweden argued those issues were already resolved and were not part of remand.	Court held those limitations were not before it on remand and did not err by not addressing them.

Key Cases Cited

Meisner v. Potlatch Corp., 131 Idaho 258 (1998) (constitutional issues reviewed freely)
Ennis v. Casey, 72 Idaho 181 (1951) (distinguishes jury rights where facts determine legal remedies vs. equitable declarations)
Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Tucker, 142 Idaho 191 (2005) (damages determinations require jury because they are legal remedies)
Akers v. D.L. White Constr., Inc., 156 Idaho 27 (2013) (trial court discretion on whether the record should be supplemented on remand)
Kosanke v. Kopp, 74 Idaho 302 (1953) (easement judgments must describe lands with sufficient certainty)
Bowles v. Pro Indiviso, Inc., 132 Idaho 371 (1999) (attorney fees may be awarded where appeals are unreasonable or lack foundation)