Thomas Arnold and Rebecca Arnold v. City of Stanley

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the City of Stanley in a challenge under Idaho’s open meeting law. The court held that a private plaintiff must be adversely affected by the open meeting law violation itself, not merely by substantive action taken at the allegedly improper meeting. Because the Arnolds did not attend or attempt to participate in the meeting that began early, they lacked standing, and the City was awarded attorney fees.

Holdings

1. Only a person affected by a violation of Idaho's open meeting law may bring a private enforcement action under Idaho Code section 67-2347(6). Being affected by a substantive action taken at a meeting is not, by itself, the same as being affected by the open-meeting-law violation. Because the Arnolds did not attend or intend to attend the meeting and suffered no effect from its early start, they lacked standing.
2. The City was entitled to reasonable attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-117 because the Arnolds continued to pursue an appeal without a reasonable basis in fact or law after receiving the district court's well-reasoned rejection of the same theory.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Idaho Code section 67-2347(6) permits a private enforcement action by a person who was not adversely affected by the alleged open-meeting-law violation.
2. Whether the City was entitled to attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-117.

Disposition

affirmed