Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 35-101 (2026)
Lawful fences in general.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Lawful fences in general.
A lawful fence, except as hereinafter provided, must be not less than four and one-half (4 1/2) feet high, and the bottom board, rail, pole or wire must not be more than twenty (20") inches above the ground, and the space between the top and bottom board, rail, pole or wire must be well divided.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1956–2024 · leading case: Maguire v. Yanke, 590 P.2d 85 (Idaho 1978).
Maguire v. Yanke, 590 P.2d 85 (Idaho 1978). “Idaho Code §§ 35-101 and 35-102 define what constitutes a legal fence, prescribing standards relating to height, length, number of rails and materials.”
State v. Kelly, 678 P.2d 60 (Idaho Ct. App. 1984). “See I.C. §§ 35-101 to -112 and 25-2201 to -2211.”
Soran v. Schoessler, 394 P.2d 160 (Idaho 1964). “See generally I.C. §§ 35-101 and 35-102. Appellant next assigns as error the finding that “The fence posts were not set substantially in the ground and were rotted at the ground causing many posts to lean perceptibly.”
Zenier v. Spokane Int'l R.R. Co., 300 P.2d 494 (Idaho 1956). “” A lawful fence is defined by I.C. §§ 35-101 and 35-102. Such a fence must be not less than four and a half feet high, and the bottom board, rail, pole or wire must not be more than twenty inches above the ground, with the space between the top and bottom well divided; provided…”
Corthell v. Pearson, 399 P.2d 266 (Idaho 1965). “The question herein is not whether there is substantial evidence to show that the animal may have been confined by a lawful fence, I.C. § 35-101 et seq., from which the animal may have escaped.”
Simmons v. Loertscher, 551 P.3d 719 (Idaho 2024). “§ 25-2201 (providing that any landowner who encloses his property with a legal fence, as defined by sections 35-101 and 35-102, has a cause of action against the owner of animals that break through the enclosure).”
State v. Flynn, 687 P.2d 596 (Idaho Ct. App. 1984). “Under this statute the state is not required to prove that the animals are enclosed by a “lawful fence” as defined by I.C. §§ 35-101, -102. The evidence concerning the condition of the fences at different times was contradictory.”
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.