Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 43-1107 (2026)
Costs.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Costs.
The costs of excluding any land as provided in this chapter shall be borne by the petitioner or petitioners except in cases where:
(1) The lands excluded are found to be too high or not susceptible of irrigation from the water system of the district without pumping by the landowner and the petitioner or previous owners of the land have paid the assessments of the district against that land; or
(2) The exclusion is requested under subsection (a)3. or (a)4. of section 43-1102, Idaho Code, and for the five (5) irrigation seasons preceding the filing of the petition (a) there has been no pipe, ditch or other delivery system between the land and the assigned delivery point on the district’s irrigation system, and (b) the petitioner or previous owners of the land have paid the assessments of the district against that land. If the petitioner is required to pay the costs of exclusion hearing proceedings, the board may require a deposit of the estimated costs before they will hear the petition and the one hundred fifty (150) day period in which the petition must be heard as provided in section 43-1104, Idaho Code, shall not begin to run until the estimated costs have been deposited; provided however, that, in case of a successful appeal by the petitioner, the costs taxed by the district to the petitioner or petitioners whose lands are excluded by the district court shall be borne by the irrigation district. If the actual costs of the exclusion proceedings are less than the amount deposited by the petitioner, the excess deposit shall be credited against any amounts which are to be paid by the petitioner prior to entry of the order of exclusion, and the balance, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner within fourteen (14) days after the hearing; if the actual costs of the exclusion proceedings are more than the deposit, the difference shall be paid to the district by the petitioner within fourteen (14) days after receipt of a statement to that effect from the district, and the board shall not be required to enter an order of exclusion until the difference is paid.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1941–2013 · leading case: Bettwieser v. New York Irrigation Dist., 297 P.3d 1134 (Idaho 2013).
Bettwieser v. New York Irrigation Dist., 297 P.3d 1134 (Idaho 2013). “Whether Idaho Code § 43-1107 permits the District to waive exclusion fees prior to receiving an exclusion petition.”
Clevenger v. Potlatch Forests, Inc., 377 P.2d 794 (Idaho 1963). “§§ 43-1107 and 43-1407, now I.C. §§ 72-307 and 72-607, the Court said: "It should be pointed out here the record does not show claimant's injuries required continuous medical treatment and care from the date of the accident, as was apparently true in Flock v.”
Wanke v. Ziebarth Const. Co., 202 P.2d 384 (Idaho 1948). “In construing section 43-1107, supra, it must be conceded it does not expressly require an employer to provide an injured employee with “medical, surgical or other attendance or treatment” under such circumstances.”
Hancock v. Halliday, 150 P.2d 137 (Idaho 1943). “Nothing in this act shall be construed as preventing employers and workmen from waiving the provisions of Section 43-1107 and entering into mutual contracts or agreements providing for hospital benefits and accommodations to be furnished to the employee.”
Holt v. Spencer Lumber Co., 199 P.2d 268 (Idaho 1948). ““The Board, therefore, rules that the employer is liable to claimant for the full recovery, both on account of disability and of medical treatment to which claimant is entitled under the Workmen’s Compensation law.”
Skelly v. Sunshine Mining Co., 109 P.2d 622 (Idaho 1941). “) Section 43-1107 provides that the employer shall furnish “an injured employee such reasonable medical, surgical or other attendance .”
Lane v. Gen. Tel. Co. of Nw., 376 P.2d 198 (Idaho 1962). “§ 72-307 provides that: “The employer shall provide for an injured employee such reasonable medical, surgical or other attendance or treatment, nurse and hospital service, medicine, crutches and apparatus, as may be required or be requested by the employee immediately after an…”
Epperson v. Texas-Owyhee Mining & Dev. Co., 118 P.2d 745 (Idaho 1941). “) “Nothing in this act shall be construed as preventing employers and workmen from waiving the provisions of section 43-1107 and entering into mutual contracts or agreements providing for hospital benefits and accommodations to be furnished to the employee.”
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.