Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 52-111 (2026)

Actions for nuisance. 

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

Actions for nuisance. 

Anything which is injurious to health or morals, or indecent, or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, is a nuisance and the subject of an action. In the case of a moral nuisance, the action may be brought by any resident citizen of the county; in all other cases the action may be brought by any person whose property is injuriously affected, or whose personal enjoyment is lessened by the nuisance; and by the judgment the nuisance may be enjoined or abated, as well as damages recovered.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case: Jones v. Starnes, 245 P.3d 1009 (Idaho 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jones v. Starnes, 245 P.3d 1009 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 12× “The Joneses argue that Boomers violated Idaho's nuisance statute, I.C. § 52-111, asserting that "the actions of Boomers was [sic] a nuisance which interfered with the Jones' comfortable enjoyment of life and unlawfully obstructed the free passage of use in the customary manner…”
Benninger v. Derifield, 129 P.3d 1235 (Idaho 2006). · cites it 2× “A remand is necessary to define the scope of the easement.”
Carpenter v. Double R Cattle Co., Inc., 669 P.2d 643 (Idaho Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “Idaho Code § 52-111 empowers “any person whose property is injuriously affected, or whose personal enjoyment is lessened by the nuisance [to bring an action] .”
McVicars v. Christensen, 320 P.3d 948 (Idaho 2014). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 52-111. While a structure that is a nuisance in fact may be enjoined, injunctions are disfavored where the structure serves a useful purpose and the nuisance arises out of a legitimate business or activity’s particular manner of operation.”
Archer v. Shields Lumber Co., 434 P.2d 79 (Idaho 1967). · cites it 2× “Another Idaho statute, I.C. § 52-111, provides as follows: “Anything which is injurious to health or morals, or indecent, or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, is a…”
Payne v. Skaar, 900 P.2d 1352 (Idaho 1995). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 52-111 (emphasis added). Damages may be recovered along with an injunction or abatement, but we find no statutory requirement that the complainants prove an entitlement to monetary damages before a nuisance can be enjoined or abated.”
South Hill Meat Lockers Incorp. v. Idaho Transp. Dept. (Idaho 2025). · cites it 4× “In the case of a moral nuisance, the action may be brought by any resident citizen of the county; in all other cases the action may be brought by any person whose property is injuriously affected, or whose personal enjoyment is lessened by the nuisance; and by the judgment the…”
South Hill Meat Lockers Incorp. v. Idaho Transp. Dept. (Idaho 2025). · cites it 4× “In the case of a moral nuisance, the action may be brought by any resident citizen of the county; in all other cases the action may be brought by any person whose property is injuriously affected, or whose personal enjoyment is lessened by the nuisance; and by the judgment the…”
Rasmussen v. J.R. Simplot Co. (D. Idaho 2025). · cites it 2× “Third, Simplot is correct that Idaho Code § 52-111 does provide a private right of action to enjoin or abate a nuisance, and the Court finds a plain reading of that statute suggests injunctive relief is limited to controlling the nuisance itself.”
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.