Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 54-1802 (2026)

Purpose. 

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

Purpose. 

Recognizing that the practice of medicine is a privilege granted by the state of Idaho and is not a natural right of individuals, the purpose of this chapter is to assure the public health, safety and welfare in the state by the licensure and regulation of physicians and physician assistants, and the exclusion of unlicensed persons from the practice of medicine.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1953–2013 · leading case: State v. Kellogg, 636 P.2d 750 (Idaho 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Kellogg, 636 P.2d 750 (Idaho 1981). · cites it 30× “At the time that Kellogg committed the acts giving rise to the charge in this case, I.C. § 54-1802, the definitions section of the Physicians and Surgeons Act, did not contain a separate definition of physician, [6] but I.”
Hall v. Rocky Mtn Emergency Physicians, 312 P.3d 313 (Idaho 2013). · cites it 8× “” I.C. § 54-1802. It also provides for the discipline of those licensed to practice medicine.”
State v. Maxfield, 564 P.2d 968 (Idaho 1977). · cites it 16× “It is thus the conclusion of the court that the broad conclusion reached in Smith that the application of I.C. § 54-1802 to naturopathy is unconstitutional is incorrect.”
Miller v. Haller, 924 P.2d 607 (Idaho 1996). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 54-1802. Pursuant to that authority, the Idaho Code provides the state board of medicine with specific grounds for disciplining a licensed physician, which includes: (8) Division of fees or gifts or agreement to split or divide fees or gifts received for professional…”
Maxfield v. State, 700 P.2d 115 (Idaho Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “Again, this claim is one which could and should have been raised on direct appeal. We will not address it on a petition for post-conviction relief.”
Maxfield v. Thomas, 557 F. Supp. 1123 (D. Idaho 1983). · cites it 6× “In that action plaintiff sought to have Idaho Code § 54-1802 declared unconstitutionally vague and was successful in the trial court.”
Smith v. State Bd. of Med., 259 P.2d 1033 (Idaho 1953). · cites it 10× “Section 54-1802, I.C., makes no distinction between major and minor surgery and appellant’s statements bring his acts within the scope of the statute as showing he practiced surgery without a license to do so, under the authorities hereafter cited.”
Noak v. Idaho Dep't of Corr., 271 P.3d 703 (Idaho 2012). · cites it 2× “” I.C. § 54-1802. The IBOM has broad authority to cany out this purpose by conducting investigations and taking disciplinary action against physicians.”
State Ex Rel. State Bd. of Med. v. Smith, 337 P.2d 938 (Idaho 1959). · cites it 4× “Section 54-1802, I.C., provides in pertinent part as follows: “(a) Any person shall be regarded as practicing medicine and surgery who shall advertise in any manner, or hold himself or herself out to the public, as a physician and surgeon, or either, or who shall investigate,…”
Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2004). “” Idaho Code § 54-1802 . The law provides that the Board is composed of seven active physicians, two public members, and the director of the Idaho State Police.”
Hall v. Rocky Mtn Emergency Physicians (Idaho 2013). · cites it 4× “” I.C. § 54-1802. It also provides for the discipline of those licensed to practice medicine.”
John F. Noak, M.D. v. Dept of Corr. & Prison Health Servs., Inc. (Idaho 2012). · cites it 2× “” I.C. § 54-1802. The IBOM has broad authority to carry out this purpose by conducting investigations and taking disciplinary action against physicians.”
— Idaho Code § 54-1802(a) — 2 cases
State v. Kellogg, 636 P.2d 750 (Idaho 1981). “At the time that Kellogg committed the acts giving rise to the charge in this case, I.C. § 54-1802, the definitions section of the Physicians and Surgeons Act, did not contain a separate definition of physician, [6] but I.”
State v. Maxfield, 564 P.2d 968 (Idaho 1977). “It is thus the conclusion of the court that the broad conclusion reached in Smith that the application of I.C. § 54-1802 to naturopathy is unconstitutional is incorrect.”
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.