Court Opinion

ID: 9584073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:44:25.296497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:06:29.462800
License: Public Domain

*438SHEPARD, Justice,
concurring and dissenting:
I do not agree with that portion of the majority opinion which holds that the district court erred in ruling that the county herein was estopped. Admittedly, the holding of the majority is based upon Harrell v. City of Lewiston, 95 Idaho 243, 506 P.2d 470 (1973). However, I continue to view the holding in Harrell as erroneous.
As to the holding of the majority which is primarily based upon the doctrine of judicial notice of certain zoning ordinances of Canyon County, I also disagree. However, in the record before the Court are the actual ordinances which demonstrate that the respondent’s property was being put to a use forbidden under those ordinances. Hence, I concur in the result obtained by that portion of the majority opinion.
BISTLINE, J., concurs.