Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 40-208 (2026)

Judicial review.

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Judicial review.

(1) Any resident or property holder within the county or highway district system, including the state of Idaho or any of its subdivisions or any agency of the federal government, who is aggrieved by a final decision of a board of county or highway district commissioners in an abandonment and vacation or validation proceeding is entitled to judicial review under the provisions of this section.

(2) Proceedings for review are instituted by filing a petition in the district court of the county in which the commissioners have jurisdiction over the highway or public right-of-way within twenty-eight (28) days after the filing of the final decision of the commissioners or, if a rehearing is requested, within twenty-eight (28) days after the decision thereon.

(3) The filing of the petition does not itself stay enforcement of the commissioners’ decision. The reviewing court may order a stay upon appropriate terms.

(4) Within thirty (30) days after the service of the petition, or within further time allowed by the court, the commissioners shall transmit to the reviewing court the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the proceeding under review. By stipulation of all parties to the review proceedings, the record may be shortened. A party unreasonably refusing to stipulate to limit the record may be ordered by the court to pay for additional costs. The court may require subsequent corrections to the record and may also require or permit additions to the record.

(5) The parties may present additional evidence to the court, upon a showing to the court that such evidence is material to the issues presented to the court. In such case, the court may order that the additional information be presented to the commissioners upon conditions determined by the court. The commissioners may modify their findings and decisions by reason of the additional information and shall file that information and any modifications, new findings, or decisions with the reviewing court.

(6) Either party to a proceeding may request in writing that a judge who resides outside the county where the subject road or property is located be appointed to hear the case, and, upon such written request, such a judge shall be appointed for the case. The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury. The court shall consider the record before the board of county or highway district commissioners and shall defer to the board of county or highway district commissioners on matters in which such board has appropriately exercised its discretion with respect to the evaluation of the public interest. As to the determination of highway or public right-of-way creation, width and abandonment, the court may accept new evidence and testimony supplemental to the record provided by the county or highway district, and the court shall consider those issues anew. In cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the commissioners, not shown in the record, proof thereon may be taken in the court. The court, upon request, shall hear oral argument and receive written briefs.

(7) Any person other than a board of county or highway district commissioners seeking a determination of the legal status or the width of a highway or public right-of-way shall first petition for the initiation of validation or abandonment proceedings, or both, as provided for in sections 40-203(1)(b) and 40-203A(1), Idaho Code. If the commissioners having jurisdiction over the highway system do not initiate a proceeding in response to such a petition within thirty (30) days, the person may seek a determination by quiet title or other available judicial means. When the legal status or width of a highway or public right-of-way is disputed and where a board of county or highway district commissioners wishes to determine the legal status or width of a highway or public right-of-way, the commissioners shall initiate validation or abandonment proceedings, or both, as provided for in sections 40-203 and 40-203A, Idaho Code, rather than initiating an action for quiet title. If proceedings pursuant to the provisions of section 40-203 or 40-203A, Idaho Code, are initiated, those proceedings and any appeal or remand therefrom shall provide the exclusive basis for determining the status and width of the highway, and no court shall have jurisdiction to determine the status or width of said highway except by way of judicial review provided for in this section. Provided that nothing in this subsection shall preclude determination of the legal status or width of a public road in the course of an eminent domain proceeding, as provided for in chapter 7, title 7, Idaho Code.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Munden v. Bannock Cnty., 504 P.3d 354 (Idaho 2022).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Munden v. Bannock Cnty., 504 P.3d 354 (Idaho 2022). · cites it 65× “7 The Defendant’s Counterclaim for a Declaratory Judgment regarding the status of Garden Creek Road is dismissed without prejudice pending a determination of the legal nature of Garden Creek Road pursuant to Idaho Code § 40-208 (7). The Amended Judgment dated August 20, 2019,…”

Nemeth v. Shoshone Cnty., 453 P.3d 844 (Idaho 2019). · cites it 26× “” I.C § 40-208(7) (emphasis added). In the case at bar, it was only the County’s refusal to initiate a validation proceeding that resulted in the 10 Nemeths utilizing the second method by bringing their claim to the district court pursuant to sections 40-204A and 40-208(7) of…”

Cobbley v. City of Challis, 139 P.3d 732 (Idaho 2006). · cites it 20× “Idaho Code § 40-208 provides for judicial review of a county board of commissioners’ road validation decision.”

Galli v. Idaho Cnty., 191 P.3d 233 (Idaho 2008). · cites it 24× “The district court ultimately reversed the Board's decision under I.C. § 40-208(7), holding that the Board's findings were not supported by substantial and competent evidence and that the decision affected a substantial right of the Gallis.”

Floyd v. Bd. of Commissioners, 953 P.2d 984 (Idaho 1998). · cites it 34× “The court further ruled that recently enacted Idaho Code § 40-208 , which limits the scope of judicial review of a decision by a board of county commissioners or highway district commissioners, would adversely affect the substantive rights of the Landowners if applied…”

Floyd v. Bd. of Com'rs Bonneville Cnty., 52 P.3d 863 (Idaho 2002). · cites it 14× “The Court vacated the decision of the district court and remanded the case for review pursuant to I.C. § 40-208. Id. *722 Pursuant to an order of the district court granting the parties’ joint motion to be allowed to present additional evidence, the district court remanded the…”

Homestead Farms, Inc. v. Bd. of Commissioners of Teton Cnty., 119 P.3d 630 (Idaho 2005). · cites it 14× “The court also may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioners as to the weight of the information on questions of fact.”

Flying \A\" Ranch v. Cnty. Commissioners of Fremont Cnty.", 342 P.3d 649 (Idaho 2015). · cites it 13× “§ 40-202 is contained in the section of the Code relating to general provisions for the establishment and maintenance of the state and county highway system, including procedures required for abandonment, vacation or validation of highways,” the statutory standard of review…”

Sopatyk v. Lemhi Cnty., 264 P.3d 916 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 8× “Idaho Code section 40-208 governs judicial review of validation proceedings.”

Galvin v. Canyon High. Dist. No. 4, 6 P.3d 826 (Idaho 2000). · cites it 4× “We address the following issues on appeal: 1) whether the district court erred by denying the Galvins’ motion to augment the agency record, and 2) whether the Board’s findings of fact are sufficient to support a validation under I.”

Munden v. Bannock Cnty. (Idaho 2021). · cites it 59× “7 The Defendant’s Counterclaim for a Declaratory Judgment regarding the status of Garden Creek Road is dismissed without prejudice pending a determination of the legal nature of Garden Creek Road pursuant to Idaho Code § 40-208 (7). The Amended Judgment dated August 20, 2019,…”

Richel Fam. Trust v. Worley Hwy Dist (Idaho 2020). · cites it 18× “I.C. § 40-208. That statute provides, in relevant part: The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury.”

Show all 16 citing cases →

— Idaho Code § 40-208(2) — 1 case

Cobbley v. City of Challis, 139 P.3d 732 (Idaho 2006). “Idaho Code § 40-208 provides for judicial review of a county board of commissioners’ road validation decision.”

— Idaho Code § 40-208(4) — 1 case

Cobbley v. City of Challis, 139 P.3d 732 (Idaho 2006). “Idaho Code § 40-208 provides for judicial review of a county board of commissioners’ road validation decision.”

— Idaho Code § 40-208(5) — 2 cases

Cobbley v. City of Challis, 139 P.3d 732 (Idaho 2006). “Idaho Code § 40-208 provides for judicial review of a county board of commissioners’ road validation decision.”

Floyd v. Bd. of Commissioners, 953 P.2d 984 (Idaho 1998). “The court further ruled that recently enacted Idaho Code § 40-208 , which limits the scope of judicial review of a decision by a board of county commissioners or highway district commissioners, would adversely affect the substantive rights of the Landowners if applied…”

— Idaho Code § 40-208(6) — 5 cases

Homestead Farms, Inc. v. Bd. of Commissioners of Teton Cnty., 119 P.3d 630 (Idaho 2005). “The court also may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioners as to the weight of the information on questions of fact.”

Floyd v. Bd. of Com'rs Bonneville Cnty., 52 P.3d 863 (Idaho 2002). “The Court vacated the decision of the district court and remanded the case for review pursuant to I.C. § 40-208. Id. *722 Pursuant to an order of the district court granting the parties’ joint motion to be allowed to present additional evidence, the district court remanded the…”

Richel Fam. Trust v. Worley Hwy Dist (Idaho 2020). “I.C. § 40-208. That statute provides, in relevant part: The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury.”

Palmer v. ESHD (Idaho 2020).

— Idaho Code § 40-208(7) — 12 cases

Munden v. Bannock Cnty., 504 P.3d 354 (Idaho 2022). “7 The Defendant’s Counterclaim for a Declaratory Judgment regarding the status of Garden Creek Road is dismissed without prejudice pending a determination of the legal nature of Garden Creek Road pursuant to Idaho Code § 40-208 (7). The Amended Judgment dated August 20, 2019,…”

Nemeth v. Shoshone Cnty., 453 P.3d 844 (Idaho 2019). “” I.C § 40-208(7) (emphasis added). In the case at bar, it was only the County’s refusal to initiate a validation proceeding that resulted in the 10 Nemeths utilizing the second method by bringing their claim to the district court pursuant to sections 40-204A and 40-208(7) of…”

Galli v. Idaho Cnty., 191 P.3d 233 (Idaho 2008). “The district court ultimately reversed the Board's decision under I.C. § 40-208(7), holding that the Board's findings were not supported by substantial and competent evidence and that the decision affected a substantial right of the Gallis.”

Flying \A\" Ranch v. Cnty. Commissioners of Fremont Cnty.", 342 P.3d 649 (Idaho 2015). “§ 40-202 is contained in the section of the Code relating to general provisions for the establishment and maintenance of the state and county highway system, including procedures required for abandonment, vacation or validation of highways,” the statutory standard of review…”

Sopatyk v. Lemhi Cnty., 264 P.3d 916 (Idaho 2011). “Idaho Code section 40-208 governs judicial review of validation proceedings.”

— Idaho Code § 40-208(7)(a) — 1 case

— Idaho Code § 40-208(7)(e) — 1 case

— Idaho Code § 40-208(7)(f) — 1 case

Sopatyk v. Lemhi Cnty., 264 P.3d 916 (Idaho 2011). “Idaho Code section 40-208 governs judicial review of validation proceedings.”

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.