Opinion ID: 3164691
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: Huber appeals several of the lower court’s decisions on summary judgment. Appeals from an order of summary judgment are reviewed de novo, and this Court’s standard of review is the same as the standard used by the trial court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if 3 Huber also raised the issue of whether the district court erred in dismissing his wrongful termination claim. However, this Court “will not consider an issue not ‘supported by argument and authority in the opening brief.’” Bach v. Bagley, 148 Idaho 784, 790, 229 P.3d 1146, 1152 (2010) (quoting Jorgensen v. Coppedge, 145 Idaho 524, 528, 181 P.3d 450, 454 (2008)). Although Huber specifically listed the dismissal of his wrongful termination claim as an issue on appeal, he did not provide any form of argument or authority to support it. “Regardless of whether an issue is explicitly set forth in the party’s brief as one of the issues on appeal if the issue is only mentioned in passing and not supported by any cogent argument or authority, it cannot be considered by this Court.” Id. Therefore, we will not address this issue. 6 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). Under this standard, disputed facts are construed in favor of the non-moving party, and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the record are drawn in favor of the non-moving party. Where the evidence reveals no disputed issues of material fact, then only a question of law remains, over which this Court exercises free review. Trotter v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 152 Idaho 842, 845–46, 275 P.3d 857, 860–61 (2012) (footnotes, internal case citations, and internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, Huber appeals the district court’s determination at trial that Huber forfeited the goodwill benefit under the CSO. When reviewing a trial court’s conclusions following a bench trial, our review is limited to ascertaining whether the evidence supports the findings of fact, and whether the findings support the conclusions of law. Since it is the province of the trial court to weigh conflicting evidence and testimony and to judge the credibility of witnesses, this Court will liberally construe the trial court’s findings of fact in favor of the judgment entered. These findings of fact will not be set aside unless the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous. If the trial court based its findings on substantial evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting, this Court will not overturn those findings on appeal. Furthermore, this Court will not substitute its view of the facts for that of the trial court. However, we exercise free review over matters of law. Vreeken v. Lockwood Eng’g, B.V., 148 Idaho 89, 108, 218 P.3d 1150, 1169 (2009) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The other issues on appeal are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Oakes v. Boise Heart Clinic Physicians, PLLC, 152 Idaho 540, 542–43, 272 P.3d 512, 514–15 (2012) (the determination of who is a prevailing party is reviewed for abuse of discretion); Climax, LLC v. Snake River Oncology of E. Idaho, PLLC, 149 Idaho 791, 794, 241 P.3d 964, 967 (2010) (rulings on equitable remedies are reviewed for abuse of discretion); Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Tucker, 142 Idaho 191, 193, 125 P.3d 1067, 1069 (2005) (denial of a motion to amend a complaint is reviewed for abuse of discretion); Dillon v. Montgomery, 138 Idaho 614, 617, 67 P.3d 93, 96 (2003) (an award of prejudgment interest is reviewed for abuse of discretion). When examining whether a district court abused its discretion, this Court considers whether the district court: (1) perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of that discretion and consistently within the applicable legal standards; and (3) reached its decision by an exercise of reason. Oakes, 152 Idaho at 543, 272 P.3d at 515. 7