Legal Opinion · Dissent

Barringer v. State

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided October 21, 1986No. Nos. 15438-15440Published

1Dissent

BAKES, Justice,

dissenting as to Part 111(B):

The Court’s analysis in Part 111(B) is flawed. The second issue raised by the state in the second part of its appeal is whether or not the plaintiff is precluded by I.C. § 6-926 from claiming and proving more than $100,000 in damages against the State of Idaho in this case. The relevant portion of § 6-926 in effect in January of 1978, the time of the accident in the present case read as follows:

“If any judgment or claim against a governmental entity or its employee under this act exceeds the one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) per person limited…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Sterling v. BloomIdaho Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Umphrey v. SprinkelIdaho Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Hopson v. North American Ins. Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1951
  4. Norton v. Department of EmploymentIdaho Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Heckathorn v. HeckathornMichigan Supreme Court · 1938

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API