Jacaway v. State

Idaho Supreme Court

Jacaway v. State

551 P.2d 1330, 97 Idaho 694, 1976 Ida. LEXIS 338

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 8, 1976

Docket12013

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 551 P.2d 1330 (Jacaway v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jacaway v. State, 551 P.2d 1330, 97 Idaho 694, 1976 Ida. LEXIS 338 (Idaho 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an action brought under the Idaho Tort Claims Act, I.C. §§ 6-901 et seq. It is uncontested that the plaintiffs did not comply with the requirement of I.C. § 6-905 by presenting their claim against the state within 120 days after their alleged cause of action arose. The district court dismissed the action under the authority of I.C. § 6-908, which provides that no action shall be allowed against the state unless a claim has been presented within the time limits prescribed by the Idaho Tort Claims Act and our decisions construing that statute.

We affirm on the authority of Newlan v. State, 96 Idaho 711, 535 P.2d 1348 (1975), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, sub nom., Agost v. Idaho, 423 U.S. 993, 96 S.Ct. 419, 46 L.Ed.2d 367 (1975); Independent School District of Boise City v. Callister, 97 Idaho 59, 539 P.2d 987 (1975); Curl v. Indian Springs Natatorium, 97 Idaho 637, 550 P.2d 140 (1976).

Judgment affirmed. Costs to respondent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This is an action brought under the Idaho Tort Claims Act, I.C. §§ 6-901 et seq. It is uncontested that the plaintiffs did not comply with the requirement of I.C. § 6-905 by presenting their claim against the state within 120 days after their alleged cause of action arose. The district court dismissed the action under the authority of I.C. § 6-908, which provides that no action shall be allowed against the state unless a claim has been presented within the time limits prescribed by the Idaho Tort Claims Act and our decisions construing that statute.

We affirm on the authority of Newlan v. State, 96 Idaho 711, 535 P.2d 1348 (1975), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, sub nom., Agost v. Idaho, 423 U.S. 993, 96 S.Ct. 419, 46 L.Ed.2d 367 (1975); Independent School District of Boise City v. Callister, 97 Idaho 59, 539 P.2d 987 (1975); Curl v. Indian Springs Natatorium, 97 Idaho 637, 550 P.2d 140 (1976).

Judgment affirmed. Costs to respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

551 P.2d 1330, 97 Idaho 694, 1976 Ida. LEXIS 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacaway-v-state-idaho-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack