Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 1-215 (2026)

Assignment of justice pro tempore in event of vacancy, disqualification, disability or absence.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Assignment of justice pro tempore in event of vacancy, disqualification, disability or absence.

(1) When there is a vacancy in any of the positions of justice of the supreme court, and until the vacancy is filled as provided by law, the supreme court may assign a senior justice of the supreme court, an active or senior judge of the court of appeals, an active or senior district judge, or an active or senior magistrate judge to sit in a cause before the supreme court.

(2) When a justice of the supreme court is disqualified from sitting in a cause before the supreme court or is unable to sit in such cause because of disability or absence, the supreme court may assign a senior justice of the supreme court, an active or senior judge of the court of appeals, an active or senior district judge, or an active or senior magistrate judge to sit in such cause.

(3) A senior justice of the supreme court, an active or senior judge of the court of appeals, an active or senior district judge, or an active or senior magistrate judge assigned pursuant to this section shall exercise all of the powers of a justice of the supreme court as to the cause upon which he or she is assigned to sit.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1962–1972 · leading case: R. E. W. Constr. Co. v. Dist. Court of the Third Jud. Dist., 400 P.2d 390 (Idaho 1965).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

R. E. W. Constr. Co. v. Dist. Court of the Third Jud. Dist., 400 P.2d 390 (Idaho 1965). · cites it 3× “4 (I.C. § 1-215). Such rules, when adopted by the said Supreme Court shall take effect six months after their promulgation and thereafter all laws in conflict therewith shall be of no further force or effect.”

Angleton v. Angleton, 370 P.2d 788 (Idaho 1962). · cites it 2× “(I.C. § 1-215; Rule 86 I.R.C.P.) Rule 52(a) provides that: “ * * * the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment; * * * If an opinion or memorandum decision is filed, it will be…”

BBP Ass'n, Inc. v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 420 P.2d 134 (Idaho 1966). · cites it 2× “See also, I.C. § 1-215. Neither the 1961 statute nor the 1958 Rules of Civil Procedure require verification of the complaint or affidavit stating the facts upon which foreign service is sought.”

Allen Steel Supply Co. v. Bradley, 403 P.2d 859 (Idaho 1965). · cites it 3× “§ 10-301, and it was done in accordance with law by the legislature enacting S.L.1941, Ch. 90, now I.”

Allen Steel Supply Co. v. Bradley, 402 P.2d 394 (Idaho 1965). · cites it 2× “The method of expressing consent to waiver of a jury trial being procedural, it follows that under the provisions of I.C. § 1-215, the Supreme Court in enacting I.”

Resource Eng'g, Inc. v. Siler, 500 P.2d 836 (Idaho 1972). “§ 1-215; L.R.O.P. 86. Tinder I.R.C.P. 13, any claim “against an opposing party” is a “counterclaim” (and not a “cross-complaint”).”

Knudson v. Bank of Idaho, 435 P.2d 348 (Idaho 1967). · cites it 2× “* * * ” Under prior statutory procedure we have held that the findings and conclusions constitute the decision of the court in an action tried without a jury.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.