and complaint were timely delivered to a deputy attorney general on June 2, 2009, copies were not delivered to the secretary of state until July 10, 2009, one month late. A. Quasi-Estoppel The Naranjos assert that the district court erred by rejecting their contention that the doctrine of quasi-estoppel precluded IDOC from obtaining dismissal for insufficient service of process. Estoppel theories generally present mixed questions o Idaho 259, 262, 899 P.2d 969, 972 (1995) (“Because we affirm the ... decision that Willig did not prove the necessary elements of equitable and quasi estoppel, we do not address the further question whether estoppel may ever be applied against [the government].”); Young v. Idaho Dep’t of Law Enforcement, 123 Idaho 870, 875, 853 P.2d 615, 620 (Ct.App.1993) (<HOLDING>). We find that to be the situation here. Even
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 because plaintiff did not apply for a job he could not be rejected in a title vii case holding quasiestoppel did not apply when department did not take an inconsistent position without discussing whether the case presented extraordinary circumstances holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration