Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Sanchez v. State

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided August 8, 2006No. 32266Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Jones

I concur in the Court’s opinion, except for part IIIB, pertaining to the issue of interest on Sanchez’ back pay. I dissent with respect to part IIIB, wherein the Court holds that the IDOC is protected against having to pay interest on Sanchez’ back pay by virtue of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The holding is in error because the State may not enter into a contract and then assert sovereign immunity when the other contracting party seeks redress under the contract.

The Court cites University of Utah v. Twin Falls County, 122 Idaho 1010, 842 P.2d 689 (1992) as authority for the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Smith v. StateIdaho Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Carr v. State ex rel. CoetlosquetIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Grant Construction Co. v. BurnsIdaho Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Architectural Woods, Inc. v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Renninger v. StateIdaho Supreme Court · 1950

4 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