Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 39-4304 (2026)

Insignia of approval — Cost — Placement. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Insignia of approval — Cost — Placement. 

(1) No modular building shall be installed on a building site in this state on or after July 1, 2007, unless it is approved and bears the insignia of approval of the division.

(2)  Any modular building bearing an insignia of approval of the division shall be deemed to comply with codes, laws, or rules enacted by the state of Idaho which govern the manufacture and construction of such building.
(3)  The cost of the insignia, if issued, shall be included as a part of the permit fee as set forth in section 39-4303, Idaho Code.
(4)  No modular building which has been approved by the division shall be in any way modified prior to its initial occupancy unless approval of that modification is first made by the division.
(5)  Insignias shall be placed on the front, left-hand side of the building.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1980–2001 · leading case: Sherwood v. Carter, 805 P.2d 452 (Idaho 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sherwood v. Carter, 805 P.2d 452 (Idaho 1991). · cites it 92× “— Consent for the furnishing of hospital, medical, dental or surgical care, treatment or procedures shall be valid in all respects if the person giving it is sufficiently aware of pertinent facts respecting the need for, the nature of and the significant risks ordinarily…”
Rook v. Trout, 747 P.2d 61 (Idaho 1987). · cites it 44× “A question remains, however, as to whether plaintiff has made a prima facie showing on his informed consent claim.”
Shabinaw v. Brown, 963 P.2d 1184 (Idaho 1998). · cites it 12× “Under this standard, "[t]he requisite pertinent facts to be disclosed to the patient are those which would be given by a like physician of good standing practicing in the same community.”
Ketchup v. Howard, 543 S.E.2d 371 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Idaho: The issue of informed consent is governed by Idaho Code § 39-4304 : Consent shall be valid if the person giving it is sufficiently aware of pertinent facts respecting the need for, the nature of and the significant risks ordinarily attendant upon such a patient receiving…”
LePelley v. Grefenson, 614 P.2d 962 (Idaho 1980). · cites it 2× “In 1975 the legislature enacted I.C. §§ 39-4304 and 4305 (1975 Sess.Laws Ch.”
Shabinaw v. Brown, 874 P.2d 516 (Idaho 1994). · cites it 2× “Trout which held that I.C. § 39-4304 merely provides alternative defenses to a claim of lack of informed consent, and which held that the statute provides for a subjective patient-based standard of disclosure for informed consent.”
Anderson v. Hollingsworth, 41 P.3d 228 (Idaho 2001). · cites it 5× “Consent for the furnishing of hospital, medical, dental or surgical care, treatment or procedures shall be valid in all respects if the person giving it is sufficiently aware of pertinent facts respecting the need for, the nature of and the significant risks ordinarily attendant…”
Keyser v. St. Mary's Hosp., Inc., 662 F. Supp. 191 (D. Idaho 1987). · cites it 2× “” Idaho Code § 39-4304 discusses the sufficiency of consent and states, “[a]ny such consent shall be deemed valid and so informed if the physician or dentist to whom it is given or by whom it is secured has made such disclosures .”
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.