Idaho Supreme Court says private legal notices can run in IBR 

The Idaho Supreme Court has reversed a lower court decision that prevented the Idaho Business Review from receiving payment for publishing private legal notices. The case stems from a lawsuit filed by the Idaho Statesman, the state’s largest newspaper, against the IBR in the Fourth Judicial District to stop it from running public notice advertising on behalf of private parties, saying that state law granted the largest circulation newspaper the exclusive right to publish such notices. The court, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Warren Jones, found that Title 60 of Idaho code, which governs the publication of legal notices, is unconstitutional and void as it applies to non-governmental entities.

The justices agreed with the IBR that the statute only applies to legal notices for government entities since the title of the statute refers only to such notices. The Idaho Constitution requires that each statute passed by state lawmakers must deal with only one issue, which must be expressed in the title of the statute; any matters in a statute not expressed in the title are void, according to the constitution.

Until 1994, all legal notices could run in any qualified Idaho newspaper. The Legislature amended the law that year, adding provisions regarding “largest paid circulation” to the qualification list.

The statute is titled: “An act relating to printing of legal notice … to further define a newspaper of general circulation for purposes of publication of notice by governmental entities and to make technical corrections.”

In the decision, Jones wrote: “The title specifically states that the amendment relates to notice by governmental entities. The title therefore is specific rather than general. It makes no mention of notice published by private parties.”

Newal Squyres, the attorney representing the IBR, said the decision “vindicates the right of private parties to choose the newspaper in which they publish their notices.”

“The Statesman was attempting to gain a monopoly on the publication of a broad scope of legal notices contrary to the Idaho Constitution and, we believe, the Legislature’s intent when they amended the act in 1994.”

Rick Carpenter, publisher of the IBR, said the newspaper had lost revenue over the past two years because of the inability to be paid for legal notices.

Bob C. Hall, executive director of the Idaho Newspaper Association, which filed a brief on behalf of the Statesman, said he was sensitive to the revenue concerns of small newspapers but said that concern is outweighed by the public interest of arranging maximum exposure for legal notices.

“That’s just a matter of priority of interest,” he said.

Hall, though, said he was glad that the Supreme Court provided a clear, definitive ruling on the matter.

“For a great number of years it was a murky issue and setting a lot of newspapers against newspapers,” he said. “It certainly provided with me with a lot of discomfort.”

The Statesman sued in October 2006, and Judge Deborah Bail ruled in favor of the paper in May 2007.

After Bail’s decision, the IBR has continued to publish legal notices while advising customers of the court ruling and not charging for publication.

Statesman publisher and president Mi-Ai Parrish has not returned a message seeking comment.

NEW! Online only subscription. 24/7 access to premium online subscriber content for only $79.00 a year!
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TODAY!

Comments are closed.