Sunshine Mining Co. v. Allendale Mutual Insurance

rogation his acknowl- strongly suggests given to an accused information is “records receipt.” that he has no but to answer. choice and time edgment receipt Thus, ‘a later decision at the fol- authority’s and it should be The statute is there insistence make a statement without in this not followed clearly lowed. presence counsel’s may properly be case. viewed with skepticism.’ Michigan v. Mosely, J., concurring). S.Ct. ^[321] U.S. [46 ^[96] L.Ed.2d 313] (White, that,

“We therefore request- hold after

ing during interroga- counsel the initial

tion, appellant should not have been

subjected three days interroga- later to he had not initiated without having counsel been made available to P.2d him.” COMPANY, MINING SUNSHINE Arizona v. Routhier, 137 Ariz. Plaintiff, corporation, P.2d 68 (Ariz.Sup.Ct.1983) (No. 5390, July 1983). (Footnote omitted.). filed Mitchell,

See State v. 104 Idaho 660 ALLENDALE MUTUAL INSURANCE J., (1982) (Bistline, 1345-52 dis- COMPANY, corporation, Allianz In- senting). al., Company, corporation, surance et As a note I final must add that it is well Defendants. to see that finally given Court has No.

recognition to the statutes enacted in response to the United Supreme Court of Idaho. States in Miranda Arizona, U.S. S.Ct. July (1966), L.Ed.2d 694 statutes about which I See,

have written on several occasions. Calegar, State v.

e.g., (1983) (Bistline, J., dissenting); Mitchell, 104 Idaho J., (1983) (Bistline, dissenting). How-

ever, I believe it borders on the absurd suggest there is any need

determination on the in- remand “whether

vestigation had ‘focused’ on Culbertson.”

Although Culbertson have been cus-

tody reasons, for other demon- record investigation

strates that this case certainly Clearly,

most had focused on him. police

even the officers who Cul- questioned case, or there thought

bertson this to

would have been no reason for them which, as the warnings

him the Miranda testified acknowledges, officers both clearly given. 19-854 orally

were I.C. § contained

provides that information is effec- given a defendant

warnings to writing or otherwise if it is “in whom the person or if the

recorded”

DONALDSON, Chief Justice. proceeding pursuant This is in this Court procedure to the certification set forth in (adopted April I.A.R. 12.11 effec 1, 1981). The United July States Dis District trict Court for the of Idaho has questions certified five to the Idaho Su preme presenting controlling ques Court as with a respect pending tions of Idaho law case, Mining Company Sunshine Company, Mutual Insurance Civ. Allendale The District No. 80-1276. Court “immediate certified determination of Elam, Burke, Mellon, Jr., Ev- Richard C. to these respect Idaho law with Boise, ans, Koontz, plaintiff. for Boyd & orderly will advance the resolu materially Burke, Clemons, Esq., Cosho Christopher in tion of the action the United States Boise, P.A., for defendants. & Humphrey, District Court.” entirety adjudication 12.1 1. In its I.A.R. certified for under this rule is not Certification, clearly of defined Order question a “Rule 12.1. Certification of adequate showing that there is not an that the (a) law from a United States tion of a Certifica- court.— question qualifies law for determination un- Supreme Question of Law. The Court (a) der subsection preme ing of this rule. The Idaho Su- States, Appeals the United Court of accept- will enter an order either Court rejecting United a United States District States or Court question by certified to it may certify Supreme writing in to the Idaho copies the United States court and serve question asking a declarato- Court law for United States court and such order all ry judgment adjudicating or decree the Idaho parties pending If to that action. the Idaho court, question law on such if such on the Supreme accepts question the certified Court court’s own party, motion or the motion Supreme adjudication, the Idaho law for will, Court pending finds in a action that: acceptance, in order of set forth the its “(1) question of law is a con- certified adjudication procedure to be followed in the trolling question pending of law in the action including sequence and time for in there the United States court as to which filing by parties pending of briefs to the controlling precedent is no in the decisions of in States court. The Idaho action the United Court, Supreme the Idaho discretion, may, Supreme in its also re- Court “(2) An immediate of the Ida- determination any portion quire copies of the clerk’s regard question ho law with to the certified reporter’s transcript before the Unit- record or materially orderly would advance the resolu- in to be filed with the if ed States court the necessary litigation States tion of the in the United opinion such documents are of the Court court. question in the determination Upon “(b) Filing Supreme with Idaho Court. certified. question of law to the the certification Question “(d) Argument Before on Certified rule, Supreme Unit- under this Court Supreme Upon acceptance the Idaho Court. pend- party in the action ed States court or ing adjudication question under this a rule, of law for court, may copy of its in that file a certified time, Supreme will at that the Idaho Supreme order of certification with the appro- deems or priate, such later time as any filing payment without fee. argument oral is re- determine whether Any party pending in the United to the action question quired on the certified law in States court support file a statement or brief pending parties action advise the of, to, opposition or in the certification time, place and States court as to the United question Supreme to the Idaho arguments presenting oral for (14) days Court within fourteen from the date Court. filing of the Order of Certification. “(e) Adjudication Question of of Certified “(c) Acceptance by the Idaho adjudication question Upon of law of a Law. may in Court. The Idaho rule, certified under this question discretion of law certified opinion in the same Court will issue a written by the un- United States court under this rule opinion appeal in an to the Idaho manner as an appears less it ground another opinion finds that it that there is shall be dis- Court and such pending tributed, published reported for determination of the case in the same court, appeal.” United States or that manner as an in an 63(a) allowed 12.1(b), As brief Utilities Under § Public Commission. Act, sought plaintiffs was filed this Court defendants of the Public Utilities de of a Utilities Commission opposition to certification which was fol review Public 63(a) provided briefs Section support lowed filed in of certifica cision order. to this Mining plaintiffs apply that the Company. Sunshine Court held a on the issue a writ of certiorari or review. The Neil hearing presented by the briefs —whether I.A.R. 12.1 is consti considered constitutional issue Court tutional under the Idaho Constitution. broaden and legislature whether Thus, opinion we consider in this whether jurisdic and original appellate extend the this has jurisdiction Court constitutional 5, of this article provided tion Court questions entertain certified from 9 Idaho The section Constitution.4 courts to I.A.R. 12.1. pursuant For reasons held that the had no such below, set forth we conclude that powers under the The constitution. Neil 12.1 is constitutional and that the certifica judicial did not address the inherent tion procedure established therein is valid. power of this Court. See In re Petition of (AFL), Idaho State Federation of Labor 75 several highest states have 367, 382, 272 (1954) Idaho 716 considered constitutional ramifications J., (Taylor, dissenting). process2 the certification re under their spective state constitutions. Certification argue The defendants if this Court processes established statute or court jurisdiction, it has to based upon expressly rule have been held valid under article 9 of section the Idaho Constitu- constitutions, various state Sun Insurance tion. Section 9 now Office, Clay, (Fla. Ltd. v. 133 So.2d 735 jurisdiction Original appellate “§ 1961); Richards, (Me. re 223 In A.2d 827 Court. —The 1966); Irion Glens Falls Insurance review, have shall (Mont. 154 Mont. 461 P.2d 203 courts, appeal, any decision of the district 1969); Elliott, re 74 446 Wash.2d thereof, the judges or order of (Wash.1968), P.2d 347 un held invalid commission, public utilities constitution,3 der one state L Holden N order of the industrial accident board: Industries, Inc., 1981) (Utah legislature may provide conditions of (court adopted rule held unconstitutional appeal, scope appeal, on withdrawn). from orders of the utilities appeal public argue

The defendants that I.A.R. 12.1 is commission and the industrial accident light unconstitutional this de appeal board. On from orders of the Commission, cision in Neil v. Public Utilities industrial accident board court shall (1919). P. 271 Neil in be limited to a review of of law. original brought volved an origi- shall have procure a writ of review to the directed nal to issue of manda- writs history develop- 2. For information on the 4.Article 9 as considered the Neil 1A, Moore, Tag- ment of certification see Pt. 2 provided: Wicker, gart, Vestal & Moore’s Federal Prac- supreme “The shall have (2d 1982); Wright, tice ed. Miller 0.203[5] ¶ review, upon appeal, any decision of the dis- Cooper, & Federal Jur- Practice Procedure: courts, trict thereof. The su- (1978); Mundy, isdiction Lillich Fed- & original jurisdic- preme court shall also have eral Court Certification of Doubtful Law mandamus, certiorari, tion to issue writs of Questions, 18 U.C.L.A. L.Rev. prohibition, corpus; and habeas and all writs McCree, Foreword, Wayne L.Rev. 259- complete proper (1977). jurisdiction.” appellate suggested specif- subsequently provide Commentators have that certifica- amended to may possible particular not be ically appeals of the Public orders Wright, supra Cooper, constitutions. Miller & Commission and Accident Utilities Industrial Mundy, supra note 2 526 and Lillich n. & See Board. infra. n. 899-900 n. 81. ..., certiorari, mus, and habeas prohibition, respect certification] ”) (empha to this court... proper granted corpus, and all writs deleted). exercise of its complete sis jurisdiction.” article section 9 of We consider argue The defendants further and not limiting Constitution example should follow the jurisdiction. Diefen granting See recently Court which held Utah 619, 637, Gallet, 51 Idaho 10 P.2d dorf v. its certification rule in unconstitutional (1932) (“It is a fundamental rule of Industries, Inc., Holden v. N L constitutional law that state Constitution (Utah 1981). The Holden examined an of limitation and not of instrument constitutional article provision, Utah powers are retained to the grant, 45 which is to our arti comparable section withheld, expressly state not and the deci it expressly cle section and found that squarely sions in this state are bottomed jurisdiction of the original limited the Office, rule”); Insurance Sun language The critical Supreme Court. Elliott, supra. In re Clay, supra; Ltd. v. other cases the provision the Utah is “[i]n has stated Washington Supreme The appellate shall have Supreme Court [Utah] that: Const, art. jurisdiction only....” a court to patent power is “So added). 4 a limitation is (emphasis Such § response to a certi- render an absent from article section of Hampshire that New question fied Thus, Constitution. the Holden rationale rule, not adopted practice I.A.R. 12.1 is persuade does not us expression legislative for an waiting mayWe therefore con unconstitutional. of the idea.... approval in a manner similar strue our constitution court, [Washington] under “This the Wash placed by the construction ... rulemaking power [citation omitted] upon their constitu ington Supreme Court Supreme as the Court of New could do Elliott, 74 Wash.2d tion. In re See It Hampshire has done. a construction (Wash.1968). Such to it respond a certified certi would allow this Court to entertain implementing were no stat- even if there judicial of its questions by fied inherent or rule. is within the ute Const, art. In re power. See ID. § judicial body as the power of the court Elliott, supra; see also Insurance Of Sun to render by the constitution authorized fice, 742-43 Clay, Ltd. So.2d reflecting the law of this state.” decisions (Fla.1961) (“in of a constitu the absence Elliott, at 358. supra 446 P.2d In re necessary provision expressly tional power has inherent We hold that this Court of the implication limiting Idaho law. regarding to render decisions those matters Supreme Court to [Florida] Const, art. 2. ID. § See ... ex conferred expressly [or] under article juris power another court We have inherent pressly conferring upon judicial power 26 which vests judicial power diction to exercise the section [with Const, jurisdiction.” provides: proper 5. Utah the exercise of that art. added.) (Emphasis Supreme original juris- “The Court shall have certiorari, mandamus, Const, issue writs of diction to art. ID. prohibition, quo corpus. warranto and habeas power vested.— Judicial “§ —Where power justices shall have to issue Each of the judicial power vest- of the state shall be The State, any part corpus, to of the writs of habeas impeachments, in a court for the trial ed any person upon petition by behalf of or on courts, Supreme and such oth- district custody, make such held in actual er courts inferior writs returnable before himself or legislature. The established judge district court or judi- Court or before integrated shall constitute a unified In other cases the Su- supervi- thereof in the State. system cial for administration preme shall have sion Court. only, power prescribed to issue writs shall be as of such inferior courts the majority’s heavy the state in this Court. Eismann v. In view of See this Court. Miller, Elliott, 101 Idaho P.2d In re Wash.2d reliance Griffith, 97 Idaho 539 P.2d 604 (Wash.1968), feel it 446 P.2d 347 (1975). express a caveat. grant judicial “The power case, this Court has exer- the instant it, courts carries with a necessary inci- rule-making power cised its inherent dent, the right to make that effec- power Washington Court in Elliott authority. justice administration of was confronted with the assertion Mayer, the Constitution.” Burton v. [274 unconstitutionally had enacted a Ky. (Ky.1938) S.W.2d 263] required statute which (quoted approvingly R.E.W. Construc- opin- state “shall render” an of that District Court of Third Judicial response request “any ion in to a District, 426, 435, 88 Idaho federal court before whom a (1965) (recognizing inherent rule- Washington up- A divided pending.” making power Court)). of this constitutionality held the of that statute We exercised this inherent in adopt- over Much vigorous opin- dissents. in the ing I.A.R. 12.1. ions in Elliott dealt with the issue of wheth- anticipate We expect that the courts er impose upon such statute could the court certify questions Court pursu advisory opinions. to render With- duty ant to I.A.R. 12.1 will accept our answers to are opinions Elliott references to such questions as determinative the actions of the of New Supreme Courts of With Idaho.7 such expectation, we en Maine, who, Idaho, Hampshire like dorse as constitutional the pro certification have the approached certification cedure as by embodied I.A.R. 12.1. through court rule that if and observations Upon final, this opinion becoming an or- Hampshire New solve the certifica- der will be setting proce- entered forth the rule, by problem certainly Wash- to be adjudication. dure followed in the ington should be able to do so I by statute. 12.1(c). view Hampshire the New and Maine situa- totally inapplicable, they tions as at least as HUNTLEY, JJ., SHEPARD and concur. may relate to Idaho. The of Constitution BAKES, J., concurs result. the of Maine SHEPARD, Justice, specially concurring. Judicial “The Justices of the opin- I concur be majority opinion obliged with the hold- Court shall their law, ing promulgation that the upon important questions of I.A.R. 12.1 is ion of occasions, constitutional the by inherent of when required solemn legislature. law, provided by actually precise the Until no For what the law it is is on the changes shall be made in point the presented to us and certified answer. in the manner of selection binding per It is the Florida law on us as we existing inferior courts.” role”); form Erie Phoenix Ins. v. Ne our Co. 172, well, F.Supp. (D.Mont.1971) (fol pointless 7. “Certification would Ins. lows Irion Glens Falls 154 Mont. regarded unless the state court’s answers are 156, Brown, (Mont.1969)); Fifth binding as an authorative statement Action, Circuit: Certification —Federalism accepted state law---- is now that state [I]t passim Lillich & Mun binding.” Cum.L.Rev. Wright, answers are Miller & Coo 906-08; McCree, per, supra dy, supra supra note at note at also Tarr see Corp., (1st (“Concepts Manchester Ins. estab F.2d Cir. note federalism 1976); Ass’n, County National Lee Ed. Inc. v. have been held to lished Constitution Instruction, (5th Bd. of Public 467 F.2d require rulings state court be considered that 1972); Hopkins Corp., Cir. v. Lockheed Aircraft law”). determinative (5th 1968) (“It just 394 F.2d Cir. is not Mundy, supra suggests an- Lillich & bright light showing -way, clear the Erie or a binding reason for effect —full other alternative sign post pointing in an Erie direction. Not credit. Id. at 907-08. faith and things, is it all of much those it is more. Governor, stitution, House of when or benefi- Repre- Senate deemed Const, sentatives.” Maine art. amending § cial. Constitution Unlike States, it not difficult United New Hampshire pro- Constitution of witnessed vides: Idaho’s amend Constitution —as people’s ready acceptance amend- legislature “Each branch well as governor legislature and council shall have au- ments to them proposed require thority opinions jus- year. Election the 1982 General last of the supreme upon impor- tices examine good Court cannot conscience tant solemn Idaho Constitution statehood histo- Hampshire occasions.” New Const. Pt. ry of almost 100 and maintain that years art. 74. the framers of the envisioned Constitution The instant case does not specifically deal was, silentio, this Court sub cloaked ability with the or the with authority render advis- gratuitously request advisory opin- executive branch to ory opinions to courts. do federal district ions of this but in view of some not not argue might beneficial to majority the authorities cited in the opin- procedure, have such a but I maintain do ion, my I deem it to express view. pro- too much in assumes judgment, any purported legis- my mulgating supplants a rule which the func- requirement lative authorization ad- tions the amend- pertaining of the article this Court be un- visory opinions by would of our Constitution. The Court to- ments constitutional as an invasion of the inherent of some day saving would better serve Const, power of this Court. art. were it to semblance of constitutional order art. accept the simply persuasion question— Court —which faced a similar BISTLINE, Justice, dissenting. than around indulge nit-picking rather today upholds the Court the consti- That would do opinion. The Court court’s self-promulgated rule tutionality its own an earlier persuasion better to follow the surprise of the bar not those members opinion, Neil Public Utilities Idaho Court who ease which the have observed the with Commission, 178 P. Idaho Court has in on a rather whole- years recent (1919), jurisdiction which that stated “[t]he sale new and modifica- scale enacted rules is fixed the constitution this My and rules. tions to amendments of old ” .... This was down at a decision handed that there own recollection does not tell me comprised was time when this Court constitutionality was any even discussion justices who were not in time so far distant into subject being. when the rule came in 1889. the constitutional convention by an flattering While it is to be asked It that that conven- must be remembered at court what Idaho federal court to tell that sprinkling tion more than a there far Idaho, in there is the law is the state law, logically men in and far learned the which nothing in Idaho Constitution separation more conversant with this the district authorizes government. systems state and federal advisory opin- Idaho courts of to such in law is that teaching year A first school are, ions, and, they exactly is what advisory was cre- diversity of the federal courts that. the federal no more than That Now, concededly that apparently purpose. district courts ated a for opinions them apply pending litiga- in prej- to circumvent purpose may have been not tion does alter the fact that this Court’s litigants might which encoun- foreign udice limits. activity transcends constitutional juries, hands but ter at the of local have been purpose may same time disturbing aspect The most of the situa- the un- judges. at local Whatever aimed bypass tion is the Court’s to willingness juris- creating diversity motive derlying for that article our Constitution which de- diction, it was creat- amending for the fact remains that clares Con- ed, us, thereunder, it is still with those five total why feder- son —whose (cid:127) al on in Idaho law exceed the sitting years experience Idaho cases diversity this comprise of the five members who properly apply Idaho as it total has been cannot, when with a presented declared has where it Court — thought of Idaho law to have not not, then the federal courts in Idaho should decided, together sit down previously been is apply divined to be Idaho law. they declare that which their wisdom view, is my this what diversity jurisdic- years experience determine to be hand, entails. On other true diver- reason, law. If there I Idaho is such am sity large extent nullified it, Judge not aware of other than that litigant when diversity opted who for Anderson, who sits on the bench of the the federal courts rather than state court Appeals, might Ninth Circuit for thereafter discovers that the federal court deign that reason not such a engage in has temporarily shelved litigation while said, conference or discussion. the federal court shifts to a state court the too, that there is no precedent for such a deciding burden of an issue law which procedure, gainsaid but cannot be not have passed upon been theretofore there was no Idaho precedent system. today rule which is under fire. As a The rule not is constitutionally in- matter, practical rumblings, based on ru- firm, but is plagued with economic frailities mors, reports, one can be certain that litigation well. Federal will come to a many trial practitioners there are and trial standstill while this Court ab- gratuitously judges in who Idaho would have preferred sorbs into its already over-crowded calendar Supply that Chandler Inc. City one more case which it will de- eventually Boise, (1983), Idaho 660 P.2d 1323 cide—while at the same time back holding had been decided somewhere than other pipeline a case which is legitimately who, Supreme Court for that in this Court. The suffering economic reason, very can not be all enthralled the rule is delay thus in the feder- twofold — having questions involving interpretation of al litigation, and delay occasioned to some statutory law shifted from the feder- case which is rightfully before this Court in system al into the state system. If there be original exercise of its a science known as jurisprudence, and I jurisdiction. If this Court has impossible have ever maintained that it is that, other than I am unable a trial perform judge attorney trial discern it from the Idaho Constitution. science, such a some saying without are that science is at low ebb in persuaded I am Philosophically, not most, think, system, and would hesitate the Constitution can be lightly so taken as system. visit this condition the federal the majority today so it. views It has been Constitutionally it cannot be done. an experience of man-kind that the money goes where the talent is. Idaho is blessed

with an excellent judiciary, federal

members of which have been admitted to who, Idaho Bar prior to accepting

federal appointments, bench made active

and distinctive contributions to the Idaho

judicial system. To my knowledge, how-

ever, no judi- member the Idaho federal

ciary has ever sought office on this

which is not say that each of our five iced in off Boise do not have qualifications. There be some rea-

Case Details

Case Name: Sunshine Mining Co. v. Allendale Mutual Insurance

Court Name: Idaho Supreme Court

Date Published: Jul 14, 1983

Citation: 666 P.2d 1144

Docket Number: 99034

Court Abbreviation: Idaho