Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 5-306 (2026)
Infants and insane persons — Guardians ad litem.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Infants and insane persons — Guardians ad litem.
When an infant or an insane or incompetent person is a party, he must appear either by his general guardian or by a guardian ad litem appointed by the court in which the action is pending in each case. A guardian ad litem may be appointed in any case when it is deemed by the court in which the action or proceeding is prosecuted, or by a judge thereof, expedient, to represent the infant, insane or incompetent person in the action or proceeding, notwithstanding he may have a general guardian and may have appeared by him.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2022 · leading case: McKay v. Owens, 937 P.2d 1222 (Idaho 1997).
McKay v. Owens, 937 P.2d 1222 (Idaho 1997). “In Performing His Duties As Guardian Ad Litem Pursuant To Idaho Code Section 5-306, Manweiler Was Acting As An Arm Of The Court And Is Therefore Protected By The Doctrine Of Quasi-Judicial Immunity.”
Berg v. Kendall, 212 P.3d 1001 (Idaho 2009). “Idaho Code § 5-306 states: When an infant or an insane or incompetent person is a party, he must appear either by his general guardian or by a guardian ad litem appointed by the court in which the action is pending in each case, or by a judge thereof, or a probate judge.”
Doe v. Durtschi, 716 P.2d 1238 (Idaho 1986). “I.C. § 5-306. To strictly apply the notice requirement to minors would inevitably result in the elimination of meritorious and justified claims, through no fault of the innocent minors.”
Abolafia v. Reeves, 277 P.3d 345 (Idaho 2012). “In McKay , an attorney was appointed pursuant to Idaho Code section 5-306 as a child’s guardian ad litem in order to make recommendations to the court regarding the proposed settlement of the child’s personal injury action.”
Luck v. Rohel, 518 P.3d 350 (Idaho 2022). “The district court determined, Clemmons’ argument that the Court failed to address its legal or equitable duty to protect incompetent parties under I.C. § 5-306 and under I.C. § 5-230 . . .”
Luck v. Rohel (Idaho 2022). “The district court determined, Clemmons’ argument that the Court failed to address its legal or equitable duty to protect incompetent parties under I.C. § 5-306 and under I.C. § 5-230 . . .”
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.