Property owner brought action against city alleging that city’s enforcement of ordinance that had been found to be unconstitutional in a separate proceeding effectuated an unlawful taking of property in violation of federal and state constitutions.
The Supreme Court of Idaho held that:
- Notice provision of Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA) applied;
- Notice provision of ITCA was not complied with;
- Notice provision of ITCA was procedural, rather than jurisdictional, bar;
- Application of notice provision of ITCA did not violate equal protection;
- Doctrine of quasi-estoppel did not preclude assertion of notice provision of ITCA as defense;
- City’s enforcement of ordinance did not constitute a final decision;
- Property owner did not seek compensation for alleged taking through available state procedures; and
- City was entitled to award of appellate attorney fees.