# Arnzen v. State

> Idaho Supreme Court · May 13, 1993 · 123 Idaho 899

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9857147

## Case

- **Full name:** Joseph P. ARNZEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, MacK W. Richardson, Director of Department Law Enforcement, and John Does I Through V, Defendants-Respondents
- **Court:** Idaho Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 13, 1993
- **Citations:** 123 Idaho 899; 854 P.2d 242; 1993 Ida. LEXIS 107
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bakes
- **Judges:** McDevitt, Bakes, Johnson, Bistline, Bail, Tern
- **Cited by:** 24 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9857147

## Opinion text

BAKES, Justice Pro Tern.,
concurring.
I concur in the Court’s opinion, and write only to note that a more fully developed record might disclose that no Loudermill due process violation occurred in this case. As footnote 3, ante p. 248 points out, Arnzen was given written notification that his employment was suspended because of his fish and game violation, and he was given the opportunity to, and did give a written statement, the contents of which may have satisfied his due process right “to respond.” However, the record is not sufficiently developed to support the trial court’s summary judgment in this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9857147. Public record. Not legal advice.