Opinion ID: 874088
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: standard of review

Text: When this Court reviews a district court's grant of summary judgment, it uses the same standard properly employed by the district court originally ruling on the motion. Lowder v. Minidoka Cnty. Joint Sch. Dist. No. 331, 132 Idaho 834, 837, 979 P.2d 1192, 1195 (1999). Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. I.R.C.P. 56(c). Movant has the burden of showing that no genuine issues of material fact exist. Stoddart v. Pocatello Sch. Dist. No. 25, 149 Idaho 679, 683, 239 P.3d 784, 788 (2010). This Court liberally construe[s] the record in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of that party. DBSI/ TRI V v. Bender, 130 Idaho 796, 801-02, 948 P.2d 151, 156-57 (1997). If the evidence reveals no disputed issues of material fact, then only a question of law remains, over which this Court exercises free review. Watson v. Weick, 141 Idaho 500, 504, 112 P.3d 788, 792 (2005). If the record contains conflicting inferences or if reasonable minds might reach different conclusions, then the district court's order granting summary judgment must be reversed. DBSI/TRI V, 130 Idaho at 802, 948 P.2d at 157. The fact that the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment does not change the applicable standard of review, and this Court must evaluate each party's motion on its own merits. Borley v. Smith, 149 Idaho 171, 176, 233 P.3d 102, 107 (2010) (quoting Intermountain Forest Mgmt., Inc. v. La. Pac. Corp., 136 Idaho 233, 235, 31 P.3d 921, 923 (2001)).