Syth v. Parke

Tri- Granting New sideration of an Order Respon- filed Objection

al. No

dents; therefore, good appearing, cause that the

IT HEREBY ORDERED IS be, APPEAL

MOTION TO SUSPEND is, hereby GRANTED.

and pro-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED shall be SUS-

ceedings this (60) sixty period for a

PENDED at which time

from the date of this Order filing Appeal Record

the due date for reset unless oth- this Court shall be

with by an of this provided Order

erwise

Court. simply question before the Court may do hereaf- the Court

stated: Whatever

ter, good today justice and are we not equitably estopped or otherwise

conscience reneging on our

precluded from suspended so Michaud, could rule on Judge sponte

his sua motion?

823 P.2d Syth, Cindy and

Thomas W. SYTH wife, plaintiffs- husband

respondents,

v. PARKE, D.C., and B.C. Rene

David L. wife,

Parke, dba Pend Or- husband Center, Chiropractic defendants-

eille

appellants. Cindy

Thomas W. SYTH wife, Syth, husband

plaintiffs-appellants, Welsh, Cosho, & Humphrey, Greener defendants-appellants. Boise, Idaho, for D.C., PARKE, Rene and B.C. L. David argued. Kathryn A. Sticklen wife; Parke, D. Cox David husband and wife, Cox, husband and B. and Patricia d’Alene, Idaho, Owens, Coeur & Howard Center, Chiropractic dba Pend Oreille Bruce Ow- R. plaintiffs-respondents. defendants-respondents. argued. ens 18437, 19367. Nos. Idaho, Supreme Court REHEARING ON Term, October d’Alene Coeur BAKES, Justice. Chief 20, 1991. Dec. July dated

By order for re petition Syths’ granted the additional received hearing. The Court briefing argument agency oral on the trict court or administrative shall heard petition Appellants jurisdiction on 1991. have to take all actions neces- October requirements Syths’ petition rehearing pri- sary for asserts to fulfill the of the order marily original opinion that our was in er- of remand.”2 recognize that, ap- ror for failure to while 13, 1989, by The motion filed on October original pellants’ appeal pending, the appellants Syths the did not seek a remand Syths Suspend Appeal filed a Motion to the give “jurisdiction the district court to 13, 1989, requesting October Court necessary fulfill re- take all actions the “upon stay appeal further action on the quirements of the order of remand” under grounds the and for the reasons that the motion, appellants Syths’ 13.3. The I.A.R. appeal may by mooted be the fact the respondents object, to which did not Granting currently Order a New Trial is by granted by an order issued which was way by under advisement of the trial Court, only stayed the of this the Clerk Appellants court’s own motion and are i.e., processing appeal, prepara- the presently waiting for the Court’s decision.” reporter’s tion of the clerk’s and tran- petition rehearing points for out that scripts, briefing by parties. and the the on November the Clerk of this The order did not remand the case granting Court issued an order the motion requirements district court “to fulfill the suspend appeal period sixty for Therefore, the order of remand.” the or- days. Accordingly, appellants argue by der issued of the Court on Clerk that the effect of that order was to return 13, 1989, did November not reinvest jurisdiction to the district court to rule jurisdiction upon trial court with to rule sponte its own sua motion to reconsider its sponte own sua motion to reconsider its prior granting order a new trial in this granting a trial. order new matter. Furthermore, even if an order had suspension appeals Motions for are 13.3, issued from this under I.A.R. Court 13.2, permitted under provides I.A.R. which remanding the case to the district court so that, suspending “An appeal an will upon sponte it could rule its own sua mo any state the duration and conditions of prior order tion for reconsideration of its suspension, may such which be terminated trial, granting authority there no a new is by or extended further order of for a district court to reconsider an order court. ...."1The November or trial, granting opinion as issued a new our by suspended ap der issued the Clerk points Spivey in this case out. v. District peal sixty days, any did but not set out (1923) Court, 219 P. 203 suspension.” other “conditions of such (“[T]he clear intent of our statutes is that 13.3, hand, denying I.A.R. on the other is the rule a new an order either or authorizing only remedy “a case to be remanded to the trial is final and the 11(a)(2)(B) agen- appeal.”); (“[Tjhere district court or to the administrative cy designated to take further action of an as shall be no motion for reconsideration any the order of remand.” The effect of such a order of trial court entered on [granting remand under I.A.R. “the dis- filed under 13.3 trial] motion, any party showing Suspension appeal.—Proceed 13.2. own or on motion of Rule ings appeal Supreme may cause, in an before the Court good order a case to be remanded to suspended only by Supreme be order of the agency to district court or to the administrative showing good Court on motion suspending cause. An order designated in the order of take further action an will state the duration and remand. suspension, may any conditions of such (b) During remand to Effect of Remand. be terminated or extended further order of agency court or administrative upon application any party the court Supreme pending shall remain the initiative of the Court. Court, but the district court or administrative Temporary 2. Rule 13.3. remand to district agency jurisdiction all actions shall have to take agency.—(a) or administrative Remand necessary requirements of the or- to fulfill the the issuance the Court. At time before der of remand. Supreme may opinion, of an on its 59(a)____”). Accordingly, Rules ... ad- judge we who entertained doubts as to original here opinion to our in this matter. ruling his enough initial serious he respective argu- wished to reconsider the opinion After the issuance of our parties. ments of the 23,1991,121 May this matter on 760, Syths 823 P.2d filed another notice The Idaho case which best suited (S.Ct. 19367) 10, appeal of No. on June the view that the district court erred in 1991, appealing Granting “from the Order reconsidering just an order he which had a New Trial for in Defendants entered granting entered the defendants a tri- day above entitled action on the 1st of Spivey Court, al was v. District 37 Idaho August, 13, 1991, 1989.” On June 774, (1923). During my 219 P. 203 tenure of the Clerk Court issued an order condi court, Spivey only on the has been cited tionally dismissing ap the second notice of three County times. Clark v. Ada Bd. peal in ground No. 19367 on the that “[i]t Comm’rs, 749, 98 Idaho 572 P.2d 501 of appears that APPEAL NOTICE OF (1977),Spivey was cited but not relied (42) forty-two days was not filed within regard presented in issue in the from the entry date of of the final Order reported opinion clearly instant case. The 1989____” 1, August appel- entered The suggests that the issue there was the valid- Syths objected lants to the conditional or- ity entry of a minute which did not bear the dismissal, der of held this Court oral signatures. court’s 7, argument objection on the on October Spivey was next cited in Iverson v. 1991. We Gor- have reviewed the record and Co., 527, Farming don 103 Idaho 650 P.2d appeal, conclude that the second notice of (1982), 19367, 14, concurring opinion timely 669 of No. was not under I.A.R. Bistline, J., gain requires appeal which did not one vote. which that the notice of be forty-two days filing Spivey filed of the of The last and most recent citation of within 396, judgment post appealed 111 Rybar, trial order was Hamilton v. elapsed (1986), Nearly years from. two from the a four-one wherein J., filing of the order a new trial on majority, per Shepard, determined as August filing of the notice follows: appeal, Accordingly, of No. 19367. S.Ct. As demonstrated the above set appeal the notice of in No. must 19367 be chronology, forth Hamilton’s motion for timely dismissed it was not filed. because days a new trial was filed within ten of timely filing The of a notice of entry judgment and hence was a jurisdictional. I.A.R. the 42- timely motion which terminated rehearing respondent.

Costs on No ap- day period of time which to within attorney fees allowed. peal. trial was de- The motion for new September nied order dated McDEYITT, JJ„

JOHNSON and concur. 42-day period with- which reinstated the an should have been which BISTLINE, concurs in the Justice reconsideration filed. The motion for BOYLE, and opinion of Justice now days not filed within ten was majority opinion dissents to the based on trial, motion for new denying the opinion May filed the content of his earlier approximately days 90 after filed was 23,1991,121 Idaho 823 P.2d 760 which entry judgment. is added the is not withdrawn and which following: past, this Court has observed As not Justice, Procedure do authoring the ma- the Idaho Rules Civil

The Chief petition to reconsider. provide on the vast jority opinion, has drawn Nevertheless, has been such a motion knowledge prior cases which he has ac- or amend a motion to alter twenty years Supreme on the treated as cumulated 59(e). bench, judgment pursuant to I.R.C.P. produced the one case Mitchell, 567 P.2d 98 Idaho Obray v. seemingly fills the bill for eradicat- which (1977). 1284 the result—of a ing the efforts—as well as Brauner. K. Meredith and Wm. J. assuming motion ron Even that Hamilton’s Smith, reconsider the court’s denial of the W.E. the Honorable con- motion for reconsideration could be Judge, the motion under District took by the court as a motion to alter sidered 21, 1985 filed advisement and on October 59(e), judgment under Rule or amend the he decision wherein considered a written filed untimely since not Safeway applicability of McDonald v. days specified by I.R.C.P. within the ten Stores, Inc., P.2d 416 59(e). not filed ‘Since the motion was opinion not re- had been entry judgment, the ten within for new trial was leased when the motion request- power grant had no denied. first considered and relief____ properly ed The motion was furnished with a The Court has been MacIntyre, 100 Ida- denied.’ v. Wheeler transcript argument which (1979). 286, also ho See Mr. by Mr. Meredith and presented 774, Court, 37 Idaho Spivey v. District hearing. extreme at that Of McDaniel Evers, (1923); 219 Pac. 203 Turner v. Rybar for Mr. did significance, counsel (3d Cir.1984); 112 726 F.2d American to the time- any objection file written not Realty, 670 F.2d Bank v. Harrison Sec. the motion for reconsideration liness of (D.C.App.1982). 317 Rybar hearing counsel for Mr. and at the hold, therefore, portion that the We any question as to the time- did not raise purporting cause to be an this Mr. McDan- liness of the motion. What judgment from the denial of from the or Judge that the argued iel Smith was hereby dis- motion for new trial is distinguishable and case was McDonald being untimely filed. As to missed as counsel inapplicable. When therefore seeking portion from from, Judge fully heard Smith for reconsideration had been denial of the motion right, since even if it be considered as a motion ‘All I’ll take another look stated: judgment, the mo- to alter or amend the give you a decision due at it and will timely filed. tion was not course.’ 397,

Hamilton, 111 Idaho at 724 P.2d at added). (emphasis 133 in at least one I venture that would Bistline, J., portions The salient of the comes before three cases that out of dissenting opinion were: contain one the record will this Court question majority here The which reconsideration. motions for or more thusly: proce- avoids can be stated Can example, ready Green just As one regu- practice longstanding dural 3, 111 Idaho 720 Paving, Bannock part utilization become a of the law? lar a mo- there was such P.2d 186 Here, answering question, without very much a procedure is tion. majority also confronta- avoids practice, and with part of our Idaho singular the cus- tion with the fact that contin- opinion practice will today’s indulged by parties. of the tom was both it seems to have served ue. And asserts, true, majority as the It is year there good purpose. In the last motion for plaintiff Connie Hamilton’s cases the district were two where ten was not filed within reconsideration completely re- reconsideration judge on denying entry of the order days after the his earlier decision. versed equal- for new trial. What is her motion City case is Kleiber v. One such however, true, by and unmentioned ly 501, P.2d Falls, 716 hearing was had majority, is that a Kleiber, filed (1986). defendant reconsideration, on the motion for which summary judgment, a motion for made on behalf appearances were where court on Janu- was denied counsel Rybar, of defendant David 12, 1984, de- 10, January ary 1984. On of Bra- being Terry R. McDaniel present for reconsidera- a motion fendant filed McDaniel, of Connie dy behalf & tion, as follows: By- read Byron for K. Meredith Hamilton Jacobson, 33 Ida. NOW the above-entitled De- Protective Assn. v. COMES fendant, 387, (1921) through plain its counsel of 195 Pac. 89 This is a [ ]. record, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Ida- judge permitting case a district Procedure, and move ho Rules of Civil motion for a new trial to be renewed and this Court to reconsider its Memoran- reversing his former order. We conclude entered as dum Decision and Order legisla- that it was not intent regards Plaintiffs Motion for ture that this should be done. On the matter, Judgment in Summary contrary, the clear intent of our statutes to reconsider Defendant’s Motion deny- is that an order either Summary Judgment. ing only a new trial is final and the February filed On defendant remedy by appeal. support its motion to memorandum 780-81, 204- Spivey, 37 Idaho at 219 P. at reconsider, supplemented which it later 1984, February 1984. On June procedures The court’s as of more recent changed judge his mind and times, “now,” many years Spivey, since i.e. prior January 1984 rul- reversed his statutes, fall under are not based on but ing. He stated: self-promulgated own Rules of the court’s again This matter before being the actual cur- CivilProcedure. Such request parties of the Court at the affairs, Spivey state of the decision rent of the decision offered reconsideration bearing on the instant has no whatever Decision. in the Memorandum case, sig- is a matter of historical and but 397-400, Hamilton, 724 P.2d 111 Idaho at nificance. (Bistline, J., dissenting) (empha- at 133-36 added). sis opinion majority of As noted applied by Spivey inappropriately That is 156, the Chief for its majority purported as a basis the exception “[tjhere that is no Justice wrote by opinion today is further buttressed de- 13(b) granting in Rule pages voting minutes to the final two five motion to recon- power to entertain its own 780-81, at 219 P. opinion of the at 37 Idaho proposition, a an order.” To that sider reading brings a exercise at 204-05. Such provi- no ready response is that “there is that “then the indelible conclusion forth 13(b) prohibiting the district in Rule sion then,” In “then” and “now is now.” motion to entertaining its own court from times, Spivey court held that: the trial.” granting a new reconsider an order Const., legis- sec. the art. Under another, member of some At one time or regulate by the method may lature law caution, admon- to this Court has written courts. The procedure in the district of why a ish, the as whole or remind by regulated trial is granting of a new rules: “These there are and wherefore C.S., of in- and 6891. Notice secs. 6890 liberally construed to secure rules shall be trial must be to move for a new tention inexpensive determina- speedy and just, the verdict or ten after given within proceeding.” and every action tion of the court. the decision after notice of 1(a). of these and foremost First 6890.) (C.S., application for a The sec. be, achiev- is goals, so it should three and heard at the earliest trial should be stated Jus- For reasons ing JUSTICE. of the mo- after notice practicable time operate more system will Boyle, the tice upon the minutes if is to be heard tion it un- fairly, and will avoid efficiently, more in other cases after and eschewing inclinations just results 6891.) (C.S., sec. are filed. affidavits overly techni- by the courts district reverse C.S., gives the court the also sec. rules. applications of the Court’s cal trial on its own grant a new power to narrow squeamishly majority, by a The it is contingencies, but in certain motion vote, such is bent on margin of a 3-2 has that this section not contended The determination application. technical manifestly it cannot and application, curtailing the based presumably is do so have, given Merchants’ for reasons significance, order is in it. Of authority of the district courts. Yet it substantial Respon- responsibility preside objection courts to was filed of those recited “[n]o trials, dents”; upon upon predicate, them also the addi- over and based that obligation post-verdict, continued, ap- tional to rule good “therefore cause order post-judgment motions ascertain that pearing, IT HEREBY ORDERED IS achieved, justice if whether has been THE AP- TO SUSPEND MOTION not, take then to such action will ensure is, be, hereby PEAL GRANTED.” justice regard, In done. the That was the order of this Court. Supreme is that of Court’s function second- day for those It comes far too late case, guessing. proper and in the today’s majority, who now comprise who justice, interests this Court intervenes. things differently, to not apparently see may, Be that as it not does accept inaction responsibility for their full scenario, present such a and instead will be suspend- upon learning that this Court was putting as the of a viewed down ing every of us appeal. Each one only to sought court which reconsider the at all had immediate access to times validity decision moving papers clearly illustrated Moreover, new trial. the majority’s for a purpose stay was that the declared doing it is ratio decedendi so illustrates court time in which to to allow the district doing—i.e., oblivious what it is instruct- reach a as to whether there would decision ing they the district courts that need not be change in the earlier or would not be overly concerned as correctness in- defendants-respondents decision. The any given determination conclusion. dulged procedure. members Five put, Judges, all Otherwise “District with indulged this Court likewise. haste, deliberate rule when called completely Clerk of Court was so, on, do from fret but then not—because (and within the of this Court’s directives bounds this Court will in due time with consid- order, objec- issuing being in there no expense litigants) come the erable forth with defendants, inferentially previous by tion the correct answers.” On occa- the who sions, plaintiffs pro- I have observed a truism as the in which flows were interested forty experience over years viding judge adequate from of as an time with jurist: appellate advocate and as an It is fully to reach was a determination which attorneys the who will best know involved judicial intelligence and satisfactory to the controversy. understand and the Second any The readers are to conscience. who attorneys judge, is the trial par- the acquainted extent with counsel for third, appellate the courts. they ties are of such caliber know competence that that it cannot be doubted beyond It is this has cavil have controversy both sides to the would recognized previous suspend ap- motions to request honored from the court peals, accordingly. and has entered orders on present stipulation putting the case such order entered in case. One was give so the a further hold as to poor grace majority single in It is for the upon granting reflect the opportunity to particular an opportune out this case as denying for a trial. ruling of a motion new retromingently time for otherwise. majority unbecomingly ipse its The acts BOYLE, dissenting. Justice that this order of dixit Court’s November 13, 1989, appeal, suspending the did not majority I to concur in the am unable give leave to the district court to on its own Al- respectfully decision and dissent. reconsider its earlier decision on motion holding though I to be bound the intend for a new trial. defendant’s motion involving opinion in future cases of the lead here, it neces- presented I feel i.e., the issues majority tongues,

The also talks the register my dissent sary to because order issued the Clerk the Court “the extraordinary circum- presents instant case every Each and member the Court ...” court’s justify the district copy of 13 stances which received a of that order Novem- August man, opening the ber, acquiesced discretionary To a of us actions each view, my plaintiffs’ this is Motion for Reconsideration but 1991 written order. granting a trial reopened the the order new on one of those occasions when time re- purpose for the the court’s own motion quirements of the Rules should be con- argument prevent so as to man- additional liberally, as directed the manda- strued added.) injustice.” (Emphasis 1(a), tory language in I.R.C.P. “... to se- ifest speedy inexpensive deter- just, cure the 5, 1989, September It was not until every proceeding.” action and mination of notice of was filed. At the the first hearing, days before August ten presented appeal are The issues on this proceedings any appellate were com- the trial two-fold. The first is whether menced, po- recognized trial court opening granting the order court erred parties he error and advised the tential days more fourteen after new trial than August 1989 order. At opened had secondly, entry judgment, whether notice of filed the time the first ruling deny the trial court erred 5, 1989, original motion September unique motion for new trial. Under pending before the trial new trial was for case, of this I and unusual circumstances sponte motion court as a result of sua opinion that the trial court did am of the granting a new trial. opening the order respect. not err in either 13(b) expressly al- Appellate Rule majority opinion correctly sets forth mo- any lows a trial court “[r]ule procedural motions chronology added), (emphasis even for new trial” tion presented before the trial and orders appeal. Ac- filing of a notice of after however, purposes my dissent the error. cordingly, there was no following significant. July dates are On Notwithstanding my interpretation of the granted orally the trial court de- procedural governing rules applicable trial. Two fendants’ motion for new case, portions are posture of this there plaintiffs filed July later on agree. I majority opinion with which requesting the trial court to their motion First, beyond dispute that it is settled trial. its order a new reconsider for reconsidera- shall be no motion “there 1,1989, entered a August the trial court On the trial court entered tion of an order of granting a trial based on written order filed under Rule ... [ ] juror misconduct. 13; 11(a)(2)(B); 59(a).” I.A.R. See telephonic confer- August a On Oakes, Excursions, Inc. v. Canyon Hells for re- plaintiffs’ held on ence was 123, (Ct.App.1986). 223 111 721 P.2d Idaho denied. which the trial court consideration majority that once agree I with the likewise addition, also the trial court at that time In trial court is perfected the an 60(b) motion asserted on the a Rule denied to take jurisdiction generally divested newly evidence. grounds of discovered case, in the H & V any further action However, minutes according to the clerk’s En- Engineering v. Board of Professional 25, hearing, the trial August the 1989 (1987); 646, P.2d 55 Idaho 747 gineers, 113 parties that he was orally advised the court Neibaur, 98 Idaho v. Security Bank First 1, August opening the 1989 sponte (1977); Canyon sua 598, Hells P.2d 276 570 granted 123, defendant a new Oakes, had Excursions, order which 111 Idaho Inc. v. transcript of that Unfortunately, obviously a (Ct.App.1986), trial. 223 721 P.2d Notwithstanding 13(b). us. also well hearing is not before It is qualified by I.A.R. having transcript, the reporter’s court once of a that a trial the absence established 25, hearing ordinarily August 1989 for new trial minutes of the on a motion ruled the to reconsider jurisdiction the trial court advised clearly state that does not have Court, 37 decision, order v. District opening Spivey parties that he was (1923); I.R.C.P. 774, P. 203 evidence of 219 trial. Further Idaho granting a new 60(b)(6) was 11(a)(2)(B), Au- and that opening court’s intent the trial court the trial to allow in the No- not intended 1, is manifest gust 1989 order original for its legal basis 13, it is stated reconsider wherein 1989 order vember motion for denying a granting 1989, decision 25, denied August the Court “[o]n

169 rules, though even the Federal side the Trust v. Parker new trial. First Bank & already provided (1986). Procedure Bros., 30, Rules of Civil P.2d 950 730 imposing sanctions. several methods for However, view, my the trial court’s exercise its allowing In a trial court to action opening the order in the instant powers, the United States Su- inherent on, of, any of or in violation was not based “prior cases preme noted that its foregoing principles and was not power the inherent have indicated that reconsideration, which form of a motion for procedural even if can be invoked court 11(a)(2)(B). prohibited under Rule clearly con- sanction the same rules exist which Rather, ju- recognized that the trial court Therefore, while duct.” Id. at a valid was not shown to be ror misconduct ordinarily rely on the rules should and, exer- granting a new trial reason for “if in the power, inherent rather than its an in- cising power inherent to correct his court, neither discretion of the informed the Au- justice, simply opened or vacated task, up nor the rules are the statute 1, gust order. 1989 safely rely its inherent may the court not state Although the trial court does power.” at 2136. Id. relying any particular it was whether Although was the the issue Chambers legal authority, procedure rule of or other impose power of a trial court to inherent memorandum clearly it is stated fees, legal analysis is sanctions and order of November decision applicable pres- in the action analogous and reopened the trial court the United States ently before us. While granting a trial on its own motion to was discuss- Supreme Court Chambers Clearly, “prevent injustice.” manifest federal powers of the ing the inherent inher- relying the trial court was courts, courts are also vested with state prevent an power to correct errors and ent Indeed, gen- powers. as courts inherent injustice. at least as jurisdiction, state courts are eral Supreme Court recent- United States to ensure as the federal courts well armed ly opportunity to reassert the im- had the justice occurs within walls pow- portance of the trial courts’ inherent courtroom. justice.” in their roles as ers “Courts Ida- long recognized that This Court has — -, Nasco, Inc., U.S. Chambers v. the inherent ho’s courts are imbued with (1991), 2123, 111 115 L.Ed.2d 27 S.Ct. orderly necessary “achieve the powers Supreme Court stated: cases,” at disposition of id. expeditious long understood that It has been Co., 370 (quoting R. Link Wabash “[cjertain implied powers must necessar- 626, 630-31, 82 S.Ct. U.S. justice from ily result to our Courts of (1962)), a rule or even when L.Ed.2d 734 institution,” powers the nature of their the same accomplish statute existed to dispensed cannot within “which be Click, 102 Evans v. task. In State ex rel. Court, necessary they are because we unani- reason, all others.” For this exercise of of a power inherent mously upheld the justice universally are ac- “Courts of modi- and then later district court to create vested, very knowledged by their to be ensure that its fy a lien to and broaden silence, creation, power impose to with complied While the Court was with. order decorum, presence, in their respect, and imposition of a court's recognized that the man- to their lawful and submission security re- replaced the lien “in effect “governed not powers These are dates.” bond,” 450, 631 P.2d id. at quirement for by the control by rule or statute but the court’s did not invalidate at we manage necessarily in courts to vested have statute could simply action because achieve the affairs so as to their own function accomplish the same used to been disposition expeditious orderly and Rather, “our conclusion it was as the lien. cases.” inherent action was within that such omitted). (citations Id., Ill at 2132 S.Ct. compliance to insure the court power of statute but intent of the only not the inherent with The issue in was Chambers orders.” Id. related out- also own impose court to sanctions power of a speedy only may rely inexpensive Not a court on its inherent determination of powers every proceeding.” action and In this ac- when “neither the statute nor the jury tion a trial had conducted task,” Chambers, been result- up rules are to the verdict, ing Subsequent in a verdict. to the recognized have that S.Ct. at we also concerning juror an issue was raised mis- power modify its a court has inherent to Initially, August conduct. periods judgment even when the time set however, granted, new trial was that deci- procedural expired. forth in the rules have subsequently sion was in- considered to be clearly analogous In a case to situation correct and the trial court announced twen- today, before us this Court allowed a trial ty-four days August later on judgment though court amend its even to prior being opened. order was Obvi- appeal period expired judg- had and the ously, that was more than the fourteen ment had become final. St. John O’Reil- 59(b), (c) (d). in days allowed Rule (1958). ly, 80 Idaho In However, view, 1(a) my in and the upholding the exercise of the trial court’s powers inherent vested the courts power, inherent this Court reasoned St. justice furtherance of in unusual and limit- disadvantaged party that the John circumstances, provide ed the basis for the prejudiced amended decision was not be- court’s action in this instant case. trial validity of they cause were able to test the Having concluded that the district court judgment the court’s amended on the mer- opening granting a did not err in the order appeal. its in their trial, we come to the second issue of precisely This is the same situation that denying court erred in whether the district present Defendant exists case. A motion for a new trial. review of the prejudiced by Parke not the district us jurors’ affidavits the record before original order court’s reconsideration of its satisfaction, my ap- to as it demonstrates the merits of because he could still raise juror parently judge, did to the district appeal. In jury his claim of misconduct on Therefore, I did not occur. misconduct view, of its my the district court’s exercise correctly conclude that power grant- reopen inherent the order reopened the case and denied the motion ing prejudice did not either a new trial for a new trial. such, party. As the exercise of its inherent question fundamental raised only results reliev- power had beneficial require parties and the whether we will re- ing injustice Syth created for to a decision judge to be bound taining ability argu- their Parke’s to raise appears clearly granting a new trial on the merits before this Court. Cer- ment my opinion, In under these erroneous. be exercise tainly, suggest I do not unfettered circumstances, unusual, unique narrow and Rather, powers. inherent it obvious uphold and affirm the decision we should powers must be exercised implied that such acknowledged judge which of the district appli- caution and limited sparingly, with steps and took error in its unique highly unusual and cation to those unnecessary error without the correct that justice where the ends circumstances an delay of a new trial or expense and view, is the my such would be served.3 illogical grasp appeal. appears It me before us. case requirements tightly inflexible time allowing powers (c) (d) 59(a), particularly In addition to inherent when of Rule intent and quickly of the trial identified the action the clear error was 1(a) not We are forth in I.R.C.P. court and corrected. scope statement set the trial years. or delay of months “[tjhese rules shall be faced with a clearly provides that immediately recog- the trial court just, Rather liberally to secure construed (Ct.App.1991), our Court wherein recognized P.2d 1177 a court’s cases have also 3. Other Fisher, of a 1978 Appeals modification in 1988 affirmed power. v. 84 Idaho In Fisher inherent 303, inher- judgment the court's as an action "within Court acknowl- 371 P.2d 847 judgments.” Idaho at power 119 to enforce must conform ent edged while a consent decree addition, 1-§ I.C. 1179. 809 P.2d at agreement parties, it is nevertheless of the to the powers in the courts vested broad powers 1603 has subject inherent of the court. still Stevenson, justice. ensure Feustel v. See also and, ruling within nized the erroneous 1(a), auspices

acting under necessary corrective action

took exercising its inherent

open the order

power.

Accordingly, respectfully I dissent.

BISTLINE, J., concurs. BURGGRAF, Rep- Kay as Personal

Linda Stephen S. of the Estate of

resentative deceased; Kay Burg-

Burggraf, Linda Kay Individually;

graf, Linda

Burggraf, ad litem Ste- Guardian Kay Burggraf,

phanie Robert James Burggraf,

Burggraf, Linn and Jennifer children, Plaintiff-Respondent,

minor

v. CHAFFIN, Repre- as Personal

Jeannette the Estate of Walter

sentative of John deceased,

Chaffin, Defendant-Appel-

lant. CAIN, Representative as

Laurie Personal Cain, deceased; Gary Estate of Cain, Cain, Individually; Laurie Laurie Cain, Amy litem for

as Guardian ad child; Patterson; Cheryl Bruce

minor Patterson,

Patterson; Plain- and Brian

tiffs-Respondents, CHAFFIN, Repre- Personal

Jeannette the Estate of John Walter

sentative of deceased;

Chaffin, Burggraf, Robert V. Sr., Burggraf, dba Robert

aka Robert V. Burggraf Company, Burggraf R.V.

V. Company,

Co., Burggraf R.V. Robert Co.,

Burggraf Robert V. Construction Co., Burggraf

Burggraf Construction Co., Defendants-Appel-

Construction

lants.

No. Idaho,

Supreme Court of Term, Sept. 1991. Falls Idaho Falls, for Stephens, Idaho Thomsen & 26, 1991. Dec. argued. R. Thomsen appellants. Curt Bush, Falls and

Anderson, Pike & City, King, Lake Wilcox, Dewsnup & Salt

Case Details

Case Name: Syth v. Parke

Court Name: Idaho Supreme Court

Date Published: Dec 20, 1991

Citation: 823 P.2d 766

Docket Number: 18437, 19367

Court Abbreviation: Idaho