Case Summary
**Case Summary: Susan Latta v. C. Otter (Docket Number: 2600059)**
**Court:** [Specify court if available, e.g., Idaho Supreme Court]
**Date:** [Specify hearing date or filing date if available]
**Parties Involved:**
- **Plaintiff:** Susan Latta
- **Defendant:** C. Otter (representing the State of Idaho)
**Background:**
Susan Latta brought a case against C. Otter, the Governor of Idaho, contesting certain actions or decisions made by the state government. The specifics of the case involve issues related to state policy, individual rights, or administrative actions that Latta alleged were unconstitutional or improperly enacted.
**Key Issues:**
1. **Constitutionality:** The primary legal question was whether the actions taken by Governor Otter, or state policies under his administration, violated constitutional rights protected under state or federal law.
2. **Administrative Procedure:** Whether the state followed proper administrative procedures in enacting resolution or policy changes that impacted Latta.
**Arguments:**
- **Plaintiff's Position:** Susan Latta argued that her rights were infringed upon by actions taken by C. Otter's administration. She sought a remedy in the form of an injunction or damages based on these alleged violations.
- **Defendant's Position:** C. Otter defended the actions of his administration, likely arguing the legitimacy and constitutionality of the policies in place and contesting any claims of improper conduct.
**Outcome:**
[Outcome details would be included here if the case has been resolved, such as judgment details, appeals, or any such relevant information.]
**Impact:**
The decision in this case could have significant implications for state governance, individual rights, and the interpretation of state policies under constitutional law.
**Conclusion:**
The case of Susan Latta v. C. Otter underscores essential elements of civil rights and governmental authority, reflecting ongoing debates within the legal framework of state governance and individual liberties.
(Note: Specific details regarding the court’s ruling, legal precedents cited, and implications would require access to case outcomes or legal databases for comprehensive elaboration.)