Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 49-201 (2026)

Duties of board. 

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

Duties of board. 

(1) With the exception of requirements for sections 49-217 and 49-218 and chapters 6 and 9, title 49, Idaho Code, which shall be the responsibility of the director of the Idaho state police, and section 49-447, Idaho Code, which shall be the responsibility of the director of the department of parks and recreation, the board shall adopt and enforce administrative rules and may designate agencies or enter into agreements with private companies or public entities as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this title. It shall also provide suitable forms for applications, registration cards, vehicle licenses, and all other forms requisite for the purpose of the provisions of this title, and shall prepay all transportation charges.

(2)  The board may enter into agreements, compacts or arrangements with other jurisdictions on behalf of Idaho for the purpose of conforming procedures for proportional registration of commercial vehicles and other types of reciprocal agreements. Copies of agreements, compacts or arrangements shall be placed on file in the department and the board shall, as to all filings and adoption, conform with the provisions of chapter 52, title 67, Idaho Code. The board may approve, on a case-by-case basis, exemption from operating fees for private nonprofit entities who are bringing public interest programs into the state. These entities may not be in competition with companies who transport goods and services for hire.
(3)  The board shall adopt a manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic-control devices consistent with the provisions of this title for use upon highways within the state. The uniform system shall correlate with and, so far as possible, conform to the system set forth in the most recent edition of the manual on uniform traffic-control devices for streets and highways and other standards issued or endorsed by the federal highway administrator.
(4)  Whenever the board shall determine upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that any maximum speed is greater or less than is reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist at any intersection or other place or upon any part of the state highway or interstate highway system, the board may determine and declare a reasonable and safe maximum limit, thereat, not exceeding a maximum limit of seventy-five (75) miles per hour on interstate highways provided that this speed may be increased to eighty (80) miles per hour if the department completes an engineering and traffic study on the interstate highway and concludes that the increase is in the public interest and the transportation board concurs with such conclusion and sixty-five (65) miles per hour on state highways provided that this speed may be increased to seventy (70) miles per hour if the department completes an engineering and traffic study on the state highway and concludes that the increase is in the public interest and the transportation board concurs with such conclusion, which shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice are erected. The speed limit may be declared to be effective at all times or at the times as indicated upon the signs. Differing limits may be established for different times of day, different types of vehicles, varying weather conditions, and other factors bearing on safe speeds, which shall be effective when posted upon appropriate fixed or variable signs.
(5)  The board shall adopt and enforce rules as may be consistent with and necessary to determine the classification of and the basis on which fees shall be computed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 59 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1955–2024 · leading case: Rife v. Long, 908 P.2d 143 (Idaho 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rife v. Long, 908 P.2d 143 (Idaho 1995). · cites it 6× “§ 49-584 1 (I.C. § 49-201(3)), imposes a statutory duty pertaining to traffic control on the District.”
Curtis v. Canyon High. Dist. No. 4, 831 P.2d 541 (Idaho 1992). · cites it 8× “Idaho Code § 49-584 was amended and recodified at I.C. § 49-201(3). An Act Relating To Recodification Of The Motor Vehicle Laws, ch.”
State v. Nathan David Neal, 362 P.3d 514 (Idaho 2015). · cites it 4× “004, the Board has adopted the 2009 edition of the “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways” (MUTCD), published by the Federal Highway Administration of the U.”
Marshall v. Idaho Dep't of Transp., 48 P.3d 666 (Idaho Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “See I.C. §§ 49-201, 49-330, 67-5201(2), 67-5270.”
Bingham v. Idaho Dep't of Transp., 786 P.2d 538 (Idaho 1989). · cites it 6× “(See the discussion of I.C. § 49-201(3) below re: the Department’s manual.”
Wheeler v. Idaho Transp. Dep't, 223 P.3d 761 (Idaho Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “Wheeler appealed to the district court which affirmed the holding of the hearing officer. Wheeler again appeals. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) governs the review of department decisions to deny, cancel, suspend, disqualify, revoke or…”
Laughy v. Idaho Dep't of Transp., 243 P.3d 1055 (Idaho 2010). · cites it 4× “at 289; I.C. § 49-201(3). A failure or deficiency in performing this duty would also be an agency action reviewable under subsection 2.”
State of Idaho, Dep't of Transp. v. Marvin Gibbar, 155 P.3d 1176 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Gibbar again appeals. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) governs the review of department decisions to deny, cancel, suspend, disqualify, revoke or restrict a person’s driver’s license.”
Bennett v. State, Dep't of Transp., 206 P.3d 505 (Idaho Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “This appeal by ITD followed. II. ANALYSIS The Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (I.”
Albertson v. Fremont Cnty., 834 F. Supp. 2d 1117 (D. Idaho 2011). · cites it 4× “Idaho Code § 49-201 . Idaho law also requires all local units of government to adopt and apply the MUTCD to traffic control devices upon highways under their jurisdiction.”
Platz v. State, Transp. Dep't, 303 P.3d 647 (Idaho Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “ITD timely appealed in both cases. II. ANALYSIS The Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) governs the review of ITD decisions to deny, cancel, suspend, disqualify, revoke, or restrict a person’s driver’s license.”
Bell v. Idaho Transp. Dep't, 262 P.3d 1030 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 2× “Bell filed a petition for judicial review, and the district court affirmed the hearing officer’s decision. Bell again appeals. II. ANALYSIS The Idaho Administrative Procedures Act 2009 (IDAPA) governs the review of ITD decisions to deny, cancel, suspend, disqualify, revoke, or…”
Show all 59 citing cases →
— Idaho Code § 49-201(3) — 6 cases
Rife v. Long, 908 P.2d 143 (Idaho 1995). “§ 49-584 1 (I.C. § 49-201(3)), imposes a statutory duty pertaining to traffic control on the District.”
Curtis v. Canyon High. Dist. No. 4, 831 P.2d 541 (Idaho 1992). “Idaho Code § 49-584 was amended and recodified at I.C. § 49-201(3). An Act Relating To Recodification Of The Motor Vehicle Laws, ch.”
State v. Nathan David Neal, 362 P.3d 514 (Idaho 2015). “004, the Board has adopted the 2009 edition of the “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways” (MUTCD), published by the Federal Highway Administration of the U.”
Laughy v. Idaho Dep't of Transp., 243 P.3d 1055 (Idaho 2010). “at 289; I.C. § 49-201(3). A failure or deficiency in performing this duty would also be an agency action reviewable under subsection 2.”
Bingham v. Idaho Dep't of Transp., 786 P.2d 538 (Idaho 1989). “(See the discussion of I.C. § 49-201(3) below re: the Department’s manual.”
— Idaho Code § 49-201(4) — 3 cases
Bingham v. Idaho Dep't of Transp., 786 P.2d 538 (Idaho 1989). “(See the discussion of I.C. § 49-201(3) below re: the Department’s manual.”
Dabestani v. Bellus, 961 P.2d 633 (Idaho 1998).
State v. Smith (Idaho Ct. App. 2022).
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.