general rule is that administrative officers of the state cannot estop the state through mistaken statements of law.”). When the government is not acting in a proprietary function, estoppel “must be invoked with caution and only in exceptional eases [with recognition] that its application is the exception and not the rule.” Boise City v. Sinsel, 72 Idaho 329, 338, 241 P.2d 173, 179 (1952). The Idaho Supreme Court has not delineated what circumstances may be so exceptional as to allow invocation of estoppel principles against the government, but whether extraordinary circumstances exist in a particular case is ultimately irrelevant if the elements of estoppel would not be satisfied anyway. See Sagewillow, Inc. v. Idaho Dep’t of Water Res., 138 Idaho 831, 845, 70 P.3d 669, 683 (2003) (<HOLDING>); Cmty. Action Agency, Inc. v. Bd. of
holding that surety was not entitled to remission or excused of its obligation to take precautionary action to prevent defendant from leaving jurisdiction doctrine of impossibility of performance did not apply to the circumstances presented holding quasiestoppel did not apply when boards actions were not unconscionable without discussing whether the case presented extraordinary circumstance holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration holding quasiestoppel did not apply when department did not take an inconsistent position without discussing whether the case presented extraordinary circumstances holding that because plaintiff did not apply for a job he could not be rejected in a title vii case