the return of a defendant's fines and costs paid pursuant to a conviction obtained in violation of due process. Today, the majority relegates Toland to a footnote and emphasizes that the defendant there suffered a summary disposition of his case immediately after arrest-a situation that presented obvious due th Cir.1994) ("If [the defendants] prevail in setting aside their convictions, the wrongly paid fines would be automatically refunded, without requiring a civil action. ..."); United States v. Lewis, 478 F.2d 835, 836 (5th Cir.1973) ("Since the district court was empow uper.Ct.2012) (finding trial court had jurisdiction to consider defendant's refund petition after his convictions were overturned on direct appeal). But see Hooper v. State, 150 Idaho 497, 248 P.3d 748, 751 (2011) (<HOLDING>), 162 The majority finds no due process problem
holding under section 7422a that the district court lacked jurisdiction over a taxpayers refund claim because the taxpayer failed to file a refund claim before the statute of limitations had run holding that the district court had jurisdiction to order restitution of award overturned on appeal even in the absence of a remand from the appellate court holding that the trial court could not award a refund of restitution where the defendants payments had gone to the states industrial commission over which the court lacked personal jurisdiction holding that the industrial commission only had subject matter jurisdiction over claims under the payment of wages statute and not contract claims holding that the trial court lacked authority to order a refund where the defendants case did not meet the specific statutory requirements authorizing a refund