Wyatt B. Johnson

Wyatt B. Johnson
Founding Member
(208) 384-8588
(208) 629-2157
Practice Areas
Professional Affiliations
Professional Affiliations

Idaho Supreme Court Evidence Rules Advisory Committee

Idaho Supreme Court Judicial Recruitment Committee

Uniform Power of Attorney Act Drafting Committee

Idaho State Bar Litigation Section, Past Chairman, and Vice Chairman

Idaho Trial Lawyer’s Association, Past President

Idaho Smart Growth, Past President

Boise West YMCA, Advisory Board Member

Arid Club, President (2022 - 2024)

Special Olympics Board of Directors, Board Member 

Wyatt Johnson is a trial lawyer and legal strategist. He is also proud to be a founding member of Johnson May, a full-service Idaho law firm.

Mr. Johnson has tried multiple cases involving financial fraud, contract disagreements, land rights, shareholder rights and duties, trusts, and other various matters. He has successfully argued many of these cases through appeals to the Idaho Supreme Court and United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This depth of experience makes him both a skilled litigator, as well as an insightful legal advisor.

In addition to his legal work, Mr. Johnson volunteers a significant amount of time to community and professional organizations. He is the past president of the Idaho Trial Lawyers Association, a past Chairman of the Litigation Section of the Idaho State Bar, and has served on the Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on the Idaho Rules of Evidence. His community involvement includes his service on the West Boise YMCA's Advisory Board and a past Idaho Smart Growth presidency. Finally, he is currently the chairman of the Arid Club, an Idaho institution that was originally formed in 1890.

  • Represented owners of a four season, national destination resort against multi-million dollar claims by an international lending institution and investment consortium.
  • Obtained landmark decision from the Idaho Supreme Court regarding legal land descriptions and the Statute of Frauds.
  • Represented a large real estate brokerage in an antitrust class action by home buyers against real estate agents and brokers.
  • Represented shareholders, members and partners in partnership and limited liability company disputes.
  • Represented guarantors in cases involving claims on personal guarantees.
  • Crafted and executed strategy for the purchase and sale of large residential subdivision and entitlements to close midway through construction and development.
  • Developed and executed strategy for complex loan workout transactions involving land developers, lending institutions, and various items of collateral including land, contract rights and other significant assets.
  • Consulted for commercial product supplier on multi-state government contract.
  • Represented utility provider on multiple land transactions.
  • Represented developer in resolution of water right priority claims for development land in Snake River Basin Adjudication.
  • Represented builders, developers and landowners before local land use and zoning authorities on matters such as land development entitlements, zoning disputes, variances and modifications.
  • Represented lien holder and debtors in judicial mortgage foreclosures of commercial and residential land.
  • Represented volume home builder in complex multi-party litigation with contract, forgery and fraud claims arising from an investment scheme involving numerous investors and properties.

“Beware the Simple Real Estate Transaction” The Advocate (February 2005)

“A Brief Writing Guide for Litigators, The  Advocate (March/April 2008)

  • Ray v Frasure, 146 Idaho 625, 200 P.3d 1174, Idaho, January 30, 2009
    • This case was a landmark decision in Idaho case law. The Court evaluated the history of the statute of frauds caselaw and created a bright-line rule that the statute of frauds requires a legal description in all land purchase contracts.
  • Investor Recovery Fund vs. Hopkins, Idaho
    • This securities fraud decision by the Idaho Supreme Court significantly adds to the body of case law with an in-depth discussion about the distinction between the standard that trial courts must apply when ruling on a motion for directed verdict and the standard that a jury would use in deciding the underlying cause of action.
  • Nampa Highway District v. Knight
    • This case announces a significant shift in the amount of notice of adverse interests that the public is deemed to have from physical features in the land.  Prior to this decision, Idaho case law established that that when there is “inquiry notice” of adverse interests in land, the public was deemed to have notice of “every fact” that a further examination would have revealed.  However, this decision softens that standard by holding that the notice only extends to what a “reasonable investigation” would disclose, and requires an evidentiary showing on that element.

Idaho State Bar, 1998

United States Court, District of Idaho, 1998

United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2013

“Accomplished Under 40″ – Idaho Business Review, 2007

Leaders in Law, Firm Associated Partner” – Idaho Business Review 2013

Two Offices to Serve You

Boise Office
199 N. Capitol Blvd.
Suite 200
Boise, ID 83702
Twin Falls Office
516 Hansen St. E
Twin Falls, ID 83301

Request a Consultation

(208) 384-8588