Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 55-310 (2026)
Monuments and fences.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Monuments and fences.
Coterminous owners are mutually bound equally to maintain:
1. The boundaries and monuments between them.
2. The fences between them, unless one of them chooses to let his land lie without fencing, in which case, if he afterward incloses it, he must refund to the other the just proportion of the value, at that time, of any division fence made by the latter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: Nampa & Meridian Irrigation Dist. v. Mussell, 72 P.3d 868 (Idaho 2003).
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation Dist. v. Mussell, 72 P.3d 868 (Idaho 2003). “On March 21, 2001, the District filed this lawsuit to recover damages for the cost of repairing the Kennedy Lateral based upon the theories of negligence, unreasonable interference with an easement, and negligence per se based upon a violation of Idaho Code § 55-310 . The…”
South Hill Meat Lockers Incorp. v. Idaho Transp. Dept. (Idaho 2025). “I.C. § 55-310 (emphasis added). While it is true that, at common law, “the right of a landowner to the support of his land was absolute,” this was only germane to land that “remained in its natural state.”
South Hill Meat Lockers Incorp. v. Idaho Transp. Dept. (Idaho 2025). “I.C. § 55-310 (emphasis added). While it is true that, at common law, “the right of a landowner to the support of his land was absolute,” this was only germane to land that “remained in its natural state.”
Khalsa v. Ridnour (Idaho 2026). “Second, the arbitrator determined that Khalsa’s patio violated Idaho Code section 55-310 (2021) by threatening the 9 lateral and subjacent support of Ridnour’s property.”
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.