Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 5-219 (2026)

Actions against officers, for penalties, on bonds, and for professional malpractice or for personal injuries.

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Actions against officers, for penalties, on bonds, and for professional malpractice or for personal injuries.

Within two (2) years:

1. An action against a sheriff, coroner or constable, upon the liability incurred by the doing of an act in his official capacity, and in virtue of his office, or by the omission of an official duty, including the nonpayment of money collected upon an execution.

2. An action upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture, where the action is given to an individual, or to an individual and the state, except when the statute imposing it prescribes a different limitation.

3. An action upon a statute or upon an undertaking in a criminal action for a forfeiture or penalty to a county or to the people of the state.

4. An action to recover damages for professional malpractice, or for an injury to the person, or for the death of one caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another, including any such action arising from breach of an implied warranty or implied covenant; provided, however, when the action is for damages arising out of the placement and inadvertent, accidental or unintentional leaving of any foreign object in the body of any person by reason of the professional malpractice of any hospital, physician or other person or institution practicing any of the healing arts or when the fact of damage has, for the purpose of escaping responsibility therefor, been fraudulently and knowingly concealed from the injured party by an alleged wrongdoer standing at the time of the wrongful act, neglect or breach in a professional or commercial relationship with the injured party, the same shall be deemed to accrue when the injured party knows or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been put on inquiry regarding the condition or matter complained of; but in all other actions, whether arising from professional malpractice or otherwise, the cause of action shall be deemed to have accrued as of the time of the occurrence, act or omission complained of, and the limitation period shall not be extended by reason of any continuing consequences or damages resulting therefrom or any continuing professional or commercial relationship between the injured party and the alleged wrongdoer, and, provided further, that an action within the foregoing foreign object or fraudulent concealment exceptions must be commenced within one (1) year following the date of accrual as aforesaid or two (2) years following the occurrence, act or omission complained of, whichever is later. The term "professional malpractice" as used herein refers to wrongful acts or omissions in the performance of professional services by any person, firm, association, entity or corporation licensed to perform such services under the law of the state of Idaho. This subsection shall not affect the application of section 5-243, Idaho Code, except as to actions arising from professional malpractice. Neither shall this subsection be deemed or construed to amend, or repeal section 5-241, Idaho Code.

5. An action for libel, slander, assault, battery, false imprisonment or seduction.

6. An action against a sheriff or other officer for the escape of a prisoner arrested or imprisoned on civil process.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 311 cases (80 in the last 5 years), 1933–2026 · leading case: Stephens v. Stearns, 678 P.2d 41 (Idaho 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Stephens v. Stearns, 678 P.2d 41 (Idaho 1984). · cites it 86× “The trial court, in denying the motion, analyzed the interplay of Idaho Code §§ 5-219 (4) and 5-241. Albanese argues however, that such an analysis was unnecessary because I.”

Blake v. Cruz, 698 P.2d 315 (Idaho 1985). · cites it 97× “STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS The statute of limitations applicable to the parent's cause of action is set forth in Idaho Code § 5-219 (4) which governs, inter alia, medical malpractice.”

Curtis v. Firth, 850 P.2d 749 (Idaho 1993). · cites it 96× “In apparent dissatisfaction with the case law interpreting the pre-1971 version of I.C. § 5-219, which had held that such a cause of action accrued at the time of the act complained ofin Billings when the sponge was left in the patientthe Billings Court created a discovery…”

Theriault v. AH Robins Co., Inc., 698 P.2d 365 (Idaho 1985). · cites it 96× “In Holmes, supra ; Twin Falls Clinic, supra ; and Jones, supra, this Court has also upheld, respectively, I.C. §§ 5-219, 5-241, and 39-4201, et seq.”

McCoy v. Lyons, 820 P.2d 360 (Idaho 1991). · cites it 60× “While the written order granting summary judgment does not identify the specific statute of limitations provision relied upon, it appears from the record that it was based on I.C. § 5-219(4), our statute dealing with professional malpractice.”

Streib v. Veigel, 706 P.2d 63 (Idaho 1985). · cites it 60× “"If we were dealing entirely with a common law rule, or even if we were dealing with I.C. § 5-219 as it existed at the time *70 of Renner i.”

Martin v. Clements, 575 P.2d 885 (Idaho 1978). · cites it 76× “Idaho Code § 5-219 (4), prior to its 1971 amendment, provided a two year statute of limitation for actions to recover damages *887 for injury to the person.”

Davis v. Moran, 735 P.2d 1014 (Idaho 1987). · cites it 64× “The district court, therefore, correctly applied I.C. § 5-219 to the present action. II The Davises next argue that if I.”

Griggs v. Nash, 775 P.2d 120 (Idaho 1989). · cites it 52× “The primary issue presented is whether the two-year statute of limitations contained in I.C. § 5-219(4) had run before the action against the attorney was commenced.”

Stuard v. Jorgenson, 249 P.3d 1156 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 68× “Idaho Code § 5-219 does not allow for a separate statute of limitation for each injury that occurs from the negligence, it allows for one cause of action that accrues once the act and injury have occurred.”

Lapham v. Stewart, 51 P.3d 396 (Idaho 2002). · cites it 32× “On September 28, 1998, Stewart moved to dismiss on the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations, Idaho Code § 5-219 (4). Because matters outside the complaint were considered, the district court treated the motion as a motion for summary judgment.”

Tingley v. Harrison, 867 P.2d 960 (Idaho 1994). · cites it 45× “It also provides that the cause of action accrues at the time of the occurrence, act, or omission complained of. Idaho case law extends the time of accrual to the date when the plaintiff is damaged where the negligence is continuing.”

Show all 311 citing cases →

— Idaho Code § 5-219(1) — 3 cases

Doe v. Cutter Biological, a Div. Of Miles Inc., 844 F. Supp. 602 (D. Idaho 1994).

Stephan v. Hoops Constr. Co., 771 P.2d 912 (Idaho 1989).

Gowin v. Altmiller, 455 F. Supp. 743 (D. Idaho 1978).

— Idaho Code § 5-219(2) — 1 case

Idaho Sporting Cong. v. Computrol, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 690 (D. Idaho 1996).

— Idaho Code § 5-219(4) — 135 cases

Stephens v. Stearns, 678 P.2d 41 (Idaho 1984). “The trial court, in denying the motion, analyzed the interplay of Idaho Code §§ 5-219 (4) and 5-241. Albanese argues however, that such an analysis was unnecessary because I.”

Blake v. Cruz, 698 P.2d 315 (Idaho 1985). “STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS The statute of limitations applicable to the parent's cause of action is set forth in Idaho Code § 5-219 (4) which governs, inter alia, medical malpractice.”

Curtis v. Firth, 850 P.2d 749 (Idaho 1993). “In apparent dissatisfaction with the case law interpreting the pre-1971 version of I.C. § 5-219, which had held that such a cause of action accrued at the time of the act complained ofin Billings when the sponge was left in the patientthe Billings Court created a discovery…”

Theriault v. AH Robins Co., Inc., 698 P.2d 365 (Idaho 1985). “In Holmes, supra ; Twin Falls Clinic, supra ; and Jones, supra, this Court has also upheld, respectively, I.C. §§ 5-219, 5-241, and 39-4201, et seq.”

McCoy v. Lyons, 820 P.2d 360 (Idaho 1991). “While the written order granting summary judgment does not identify the specific statute of limitations provision relied upon, it appears from the record that it was based on I.C. § 5-219(4), our statute dealing with professional malpractice.”

— Idaho Code § 5-219(5) — 4 cases

Idaho First Nat'l Bank v. Bliss Valley Foods, Inc., 824 P.2d 841 (Idaho 1992).

Glaze v. Deffenbaugh, 172 P.3d 1104 (Idaho 2007).

Gowin v. Altmiller, 455 F. Supp. 743 (D. Idaho 1978).

Caldwell v. Jud. Admin. of Idaho (Idaho Ct. App. 2023).

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.