Sterling v. Bloom
Idaho Supreme Court
1DissentBakes, Justice
To reach their result in the present case, the majority has overturned our prior case law interpreting the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA). But that is not all. To achieve their result, the majority has also had to make fundamental tort law changes, overturning our prior case law and creating a new tort (negligence supervision) which, prior to the present opinion, was non-existent under the laws of this state. Finally, the majority makes all these changes retroactively, contrary to the express language of the Idaho Tort Claims Act and our prior case of Smith v. State, 93 Idaho 795, 473 P.2d 937…
2Cases cited48 opinions
- Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Dalehite v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Feres v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- United States v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio GrandenseSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Martinez v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.