1. Sample Legal Writing
Valerie Stephan-LeBoeuf, 2015
vleboeuf@cableone.net
Respondent, by and through her counsel of record, submits this Petition requesting
review of the Hearing Officer’s Recommended Order dated ______________. This Petition is
submitted pursuant to IDAPA 04.11.01.425.
I. INTRODUCTION
The issue in this matter is an issue of law. During review, a determination must be made
regarding an agency’s interpretations of statute, rules, regulations, or policy, and if such
interpretations are contrary to statute, or if the application of rules and law was arbitrary,
capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Idaho Code § 67-5279(3). The Agency Head has the
authority “to consider and decide whether a rule of that agency is within that agency’s
substantive rulemaking authority or whether [or not] the rule has been promulagated according to
proper procedure.” IDAPA 04.11.01.416.
…
Furthermore, although Summary Judgment is provided for under IDAPA 04.11.01.270.02
and 565, it is improper if there are genuine issues of material fact. See Idaho Rules of Civil
Procedure (IRCP) 56(c). In this matter, the Agency Head must determine whether there are any
genuine issues of material fact before Complainant is entitled to Judgment as a matter of law.
…

2. Sample Legal Writing
Valerie Stephan-LeBoeuf, 2015
vleboeuf@cableone.net
III. BASIS OF DISAGREEMENT WITH RECOMMENDED ORDER
A. No Legally Supported Basis for the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer.
IDAPA 14.11.01.000 et seq. governs the authority of the Hearing Officer during review
and appeal, and IDAPA _______________ et seq. governs the actions of _____________ in the
state of Idaho. In addition, and pursuant to review under the Administrative Procedures Act,1
a
Hearing Officer presiding over a matter of ___________ compliance in Idaho must also consider
whether the Agency’s (___________) interpretation and subsequent action is pursuant to that
Agency’s (___________) rules, regulations or policy, and if the interpretation of the rules,
regulations or policy was contrary to statute or an abuse of discretion. If an agency fails to
follow proper procedures, or renders a decision that is clearly erroneous, then the reviewing
authority should determine that the agency’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and not in
accordance with law when exercising its discretion.2
Specifically, an agency should articulate a
clear and rational connection between the findings and the rendered decision.
…
2. Summary Judgment is Improper When There is a Dispute of Material Facts.
To succeed in a Motion for Summary Judgment, Complainant must show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact, and that Complainant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. (I.R.C.P. 56(c)). During review, the adjudicator may arrive at the most probable conclusion
to be drawn from uncontroverted evidentiary facts. Bonz v. Sudweeks, 119 Idaho 539, 808 P.2d
876 (1991); Loomis v. City of Hailey, 119 Idaho 434, 807 P.2d 1272 (1991). The “purpose of
1
5 U.S.C. § 706
2
Id.

3. Sample Legal Writing
Valerie Stephan-LeBoeuf, 2015
vleboeuf@cableone.net
summary judgment proceedings is to eliminate the necessity of trial where facts are not in
dispute and where existent and undisputed facts lead to a conclusion of law which is certain.”
Berg v. Fairman, 107 Idaho 441, 444, 690 P.2d 896 (1984).
During consideration, the reviewer is generally required to liberally construe the record in
the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, drawing all reasonable inferences and
conclusions in that party’s favor. Construction Management Systems, Inc. v. Assurance Co. of
America, 135 Idaho 680, 682, 23 P.3d 142, 144 (2001). However, I.R.C.P. 56(e) requires a non-
moving party to go beyond pleadings through affidavits, depositions, etc., to demonstrate that
there are genuine issues of material fact. Doe v. Durtschi, 110 Idaho 466, 716 P.2d 1238 (1986).
The non-moving party’s responsibility in opposing a motion for summary judgment was outlined
by the Idaho Supreme Court in Berg v. Fairman, 107 Idaho 441, 690 P.2d 896 (1984), wherein
the Court stated:
If a party resists summary judgment it is his responsibility to place in the record
before the trial court the existence of controverted material facts which require
resolution by trial. A party may not rely on its pleadings nor merely assert that
there are some facts which might or will support his legal theory, but rather he
must establish the existence of those facts by deposition, affidavit or
otherwise. Failure to so establish the existence of the controverted material facts
exposes the party to risk of a summary judgment.
Id. at 444, 690 P.2d at 899.
Summary judgment may be entered 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 judgment as a matter of law." Idaho Property Management

4. Sample Legal Writing
Valerie Stephan-LeBoeuf, 2015
vleboeuf@cableone.net
Services, Inc. v. MaCdonald, No. 41733 (Ct. App. Idaho, Dec. 16, 2014) citing Idaho Rule of
Civil Procedure 56(c); Bybee v. Gorman, 157 Idaho 169, 173, 335 P.3d 14, 18 (2014); Avila v.
Wahlquist, 126 Idaho 745, 747, 890 P.2d 331, 333 (1995); Idaho Bldg. Contractors Ass'n v. City
of Coeur d'Alene, 126 Idaho 740, 742, 890 P.2d 326, 328 (1995).
In this matter, Complainant “bears the initial burden to establish not only that there is no
genuine issue of material fact, but also that, based upon evidence and legal authority, [it is]
‘entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’" Idaho Property Management Services, Inc. v.
MaCdonald citing I.R.C.P. 56(c); Harris v. State, Dep't of Health & Welfare, 123 Idaho 295,
298-99 n.1, 847 P.2d 1156, 1159-60 n.1 (1992); Eliopulos v. Knox, 123 Idaho 400, 404, 848 P.2d
984, 988 (Ct. App. 1992). “As I.R.C.P. 56(e) states, it is only ‘[w]hen a motion for summary
judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, that the burden shifts to the adverse
party to by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule . . . set forth specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial.’ If the movant's burden is not sustained, the party in opposition
need not respond with any contrary evidence at all.” Idaho Property Management Services, Inc.
v. MaCdonald. As the Complainant sought summary judgment, the Complainant must “show
undisputed facts establishing each element of the cause of action… [and] if that burden is not
met, summary judgment must be denied…” Id.
…

5. Sample Legal Writing
Valerie Stephan-LeBoeuf, 2015
vleboeuf@cableone.net
b) Contrary to the assertions of ____3
, “Mistaken statements of law” do not automatically
grant agency immunity against the actions of its administrative personnel. Rather,
[t]he essential elements of an equitable estoppel as related to the party estopped
are: (1) Conduct which amounts to a false representation or concealment of
material facts, or, at least, which is calculated to convey the impression that
the facts are otherwise than, and inconsistent with, those which the party
subsequently attempts to assert; (2) intention, or at least expectation, that such
conduct shall be acted upon by the other party; (3) knowledge, actual or
constructive, of the real facts. As related to the party claiming the estoppel, they
are: (1) Lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge of the truth as to the
facts in question; (2) reliance upon the conduct of the party estopped; and (3)
action based thereon of such a character as to change his position prejudicially.
Curry v. Ada County Highway Dist., 103 Idaho 818, 819, 654 P.2d 911, 912 (1982), quoting 19
Am.Jur., Estoppel § 42, at 642-43 (1939), Tew v. Manwaring, 94 Idaho 50, 53, 480 P.2d 896,
899 (1971); Dalton Highway District of Kootenai County v. Sowder, supra at 562, 401 P.2d at
815; Boesiger v. Freer, 85 Idaho 551, 559, 381 P.2d 802, 806-07 (1963). (emphasis added).
Respondent’s reliance on the statements of ______’s agent, _______is material, as
Respondent “lacked the knowledge or the means of knowledge” as to appropriate action contrary
to the direction she received from _______ and Respondent’s reliance on the statements made by
__________’s agent has subsequently “changed her position prejudicially.”
3
See Complainant’s Reply to Respondent’s Response to Complainant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dated
November 20, 2014.