Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 6-902 (2026)
Definitions.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Definitions.
As used in this act:
1. "State" means the state of Idaho or any office, department, agency, authority, commission, board, institution, hospital, college, university or other instrumentality thereof.
2. "Political subdivision" means any county, city, municipal corporation, health district, school district, irrigation district, an operating agent of irrigation districts whose board consists of directors of its member districts, special improvement or taxing district, or any other political subdivision or public corporation. As used in this act, the terms "county" and "city" also mean state licensed hospitals and attached nursing homes established by counties pursuant to chapter 36, title 31, Idaho Code, or jointly by cities and counties pursuant to chapter 37, title 31, Idaho Code.
3. "Governmental entity" means and includes the state and political subdivisions as herein defined.
4. "Employee" means an officer, board member, commissioner, executive, employee, or servant of a governmental entity, including elected or appointed officials, and persons acting on behalf of the governmental entity in any official capacity, temporarily or permanently in the service of the governmental entity, whether with or without compensation, but the term employee shall not mean a person or other legal entity while acting in the capacity of an independent contractor under contract to the governmental entity to which this act applies in the event of a claim.
5. "Bodily injury" means any bodily injury, sickness, disease or death sustained by any person and caused by an occurrence.
6. "Property damage" means injury or destruction to tangible property caused by an occurrence.
7. "Claim" means any written demand to recover money damages from a governmental entity or its employee which any person is legally entitled to recover under this act as compensation for the negligent or otherwise wrongful act or omission of a governmental entity or its employee when acting within the course or scope of his employment.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Brizendine v. Nampa Meridian Irrigation Dist., 548 P.2d 80 (Idaho 1976).
Brizendine v. Nampa Meridian Irrigation Dist., 548 P.2d 80 (Idaho 1976). “) and specific entities and irrigation districts are not included in • either, the legislature must have intended not to include irrigation districts within the act.”
Mitchell v. Bingham Mem'l Hosp., 942 P.2d 544 (Idaho 1997). “I.C. § 6-902(2) (1990). (Emphasis added).”
Stevens v. Fleming, 777 P.2d 1196 (Idaho 1989). “Idaho Code § 6-902 (7) (Supp. 1987) defines a claim as: [A]ny written demand to recover money damages from a governmental entity or its employee which any person is legally entitled to recover under this act as compensation for the negligent or otherwise wrongful act or omission…”
Athay v. Stacey, 196 P.3d 325 (Idaho 2008). “In support of its motion for summary judgment, Bear Lake County argued that Sheriff Stacey was not an “employee” of the County as that term is defined in Idaho Code § 6-902 (4). The district court held, however, that there was an issue of fact regarding whether Sheriff Stacey…”
Athay v. Stacey, 128 P.3d 897 (Idaho 2005). “The Athays have not argued that Sheriff Stacey did not come within the definition of “employee” in Idaho Code § 6-902 (4). Therefore, the district court did not err in ruling that the limits of liability contained in Idaho Code § 6-926 applied to him.”
Duffin v. Idaho Crop Improvement Ass'n, 895 P.2d 1195 (Idaho 1995). “The district court concluded that ICIA was an “instrumentality” within the meaning of I.C. § 6-902(1). It also concluded that the Duffins’ negligence claim was barred because the damages sought were purely economic.”
Oppenheimer Indus., Inc. v. Johnson Cattle Co., 732 P.2d 661 (Idaho 1987). “I.C. § 6-902(5), (6). Oppenheimer's claim appears to be based on some alleged "property damage," since it is clear that there was no "bodily injury" to Oppenheimer Industries, a corporation.”
Van v. Portneuf Med. Ctr., 212 P.3d 982 (Idaho 2009). “” I.C. § 6-902(7). It is undisputed that Van did not give adequate notice of his claims under the ITCA.”
Ware v. City of Kendrick, 487 P.3d 730 (Idaho 2021). “Idaho Code section 6-907 requires that claims accurately describe “the conduct and circumstances which brought about the injury or damage, describe the injury or damage, state the time and place the injury or damage occurred, state the names of all persons involved, if known,”…”
Walker v. Shoshone Cnty., 739 P.2d 290 (Idaho 1987). “" I.C. § 6-902 of the Tort Claims Act states in pertinent part: "6-902.”
Farber v. State, 630 P.2d 685 (Idaho 1981). “, written demands to recover money from the governmental entity, I.C. § 6-902(7), shall be presented to and filed with the secretary of state within 120 days from the date the claim arose or reasonably should have been discovered.”
Nordgaarden v. Kiebert, 527 P.3d 486 (Idaho 2023). “Idaho Code § 6-902 . Ruth Ann and Kermit each filed affirmative claims, seeking the partition of the Kiebert Property.”
— Idaho Code § 6-902(1) — 5 cases
Duffin v. Idaho Crop Improvement Ass'n, 895 P.2d 1195 (Idaho 1995). “The district court concluded that ICIA was an “instrumentality” within the meaning of I.C. § 6-902(1). It also concluded that the Duffins’ negligence claim was barred because the damages sought were purely economic.”
Brizendine v. Nampa Meridian Irrigation Dist., 548 P.2d 80 (Idaho 1976). “) and specific entities and irrigation districts are not included in • either, the legislature must have intended not to include irrigation districts within the act.”
Daleiden v. Jefferson Cnty. Jt. Sch. Dist. No. 251, 80 P.3d 1067 (Idaho 2003).
Athay v. Stacey, 196 P.3d 325 (Idaho 2008). “In support of its motion for summary judgment, Bear Lake County argued that Sheriff Stacey was not an “employee” of the County as that term is defined in Idaho Code § 6-902 (4). The district court held, however, that there was an issue of fact regarding whether Sheriff Stacey…”
Feld v. Idaho Crop Improvement Ass'n, 895 P.2d 1207 (Idaho 1995).
— Idaho Code § 6-902(1)(2) — 1 case
Brizendine v. Nampa Meridian Irrigation Dist., 548 P.2d 80 (Idaho 1976). “) and specific entities and irrigation districts are not included in • either, the legislature must have intended not to include irrigation districts within the act.”
— Idaho Code § 6-902(2) — 9 cases
Brizendine v. Nampa Meridian Irrigation Dist., 548 P.2d 80 (Idaho 1976). “) and specific entities and irrigation districts are not included in • either, the legislature must have intended not to include irrigation districts within the act.”
Mitchell v. Bingham Mem'l Hosp., 942 P.2d 544 (Idaho 1997). “I.C. § 6-902(2) (1990). (Emphasis added).”
Aberdeen-Springfield Canal Co. v. Peiper, 982 P.2d 917 (Idaho 1999).
Athay v. Stacey, 196 P.3d 325 (Idaho 2008). “In support of its motion for summary judgment, Bear Lake County argued that Sheriff Stacey was not an “employee” of the County as that term is defined in Idaho Code § 6-902 (4). The district court held, however, that there was an issue of fact regarding whether Sheriff Stacey…”
CNW, LLC v. New Sweden Irrigation Dist., 383 P.3d 1259 (Idaho 2016).
— Idaho Code § 6-902(3) — 3 cases
Mitchell v. Bingham Mem'l Hosp., 942 P.2d 544 (Idaho 1997). “I.C. § 6-902(2) (1990). (Emphasis added).”
Brizendine v. Nampa Meridian Irrigation Dist., 548 P.2d 80 (Idaho 1976). “) and specific entities and irrigation districts are not included in • either, the legislature must have intended not to include irrigation districts within the act.”
Athay v. Stacey, 196 P.3d 325 (Idaho 2008). “In support of its motion for summary judgment, Bear Lake County argued that Sheriff Stacey was not an “employee” of the County as that term is defined in Idaho Code § 6-902 (4). The district court held, however, that there was an issue of fact regarding whether Sheriff Stacey…”
— Idaho Code § 6-902(4) — 4 cases
Athay v. Stacey, 128 P.3d 897 (Idaho 2005). “The Athays have not argued that Sheriff Stacey did not come within the definition of “employee” in Idaho Code § 6-902 (4). Therefore, the district court did not err in ruling that the limits of liability contained in Idaho Code § 6-926 applied to him.”
Overman v. Klein, 654 P.2d 888 (Idaho 1982).
Athay v. Stacey, 196 P.3d 325 (Idaho 2008). “In support of its motion for summary judgment, Bear Lake County argued that Sheriff Stacey was not an “employee” of the County as that term is defined in Idaho Code § 6-902 (4). The district court held, however, that there was an issue of fact regarding whether Sheriff Stacey…”
Blankenship v. Kootenai Cnty., 867 P.2d 975 (Idaho 1994).
— Idaho Code § 6-902(5) — 1 case
Oppenheimer Indus., Inc. v. Johnson Cattle Co., 732 P.2d 661 (Idaho 1987). “I.C. § 6-902(5), (6). Oppenheimer's claim appears to be based on some alleged "property damage," since it is clear that there was no "bodily injury" to Oppenheimer Industries, a corporation.”
— Idaho Code § 6-902(6) — 1 case
Oppenheimer Indus., Inc. v. Johnson Cattle Co., 732 P.2d 661 (Idaho 1987). “I.C. § 6-902(5), (6). Oppenheimer's claim appears to be based on some alleged "property damage," since it is clear that there was no "bodily injury" to Oppenheimer Industries, a corporation.”
— Idaho Code § 6-902(7) — 15 cases
Mitchell v. Bingham Mem'l Hosp., 942 P.2d 544 (Idaho 1997). “I.C. § 6-902(2) (1990). (Emphasis added).”
Van v. Portneuf Med. Ctr., 212 P.3d 982 (Idaho 2009). “” I.C. § 6-902(7). It is undisputed that Van did not give adequate notice of his claims under the ITCA.”
Ware v. City of Kendrick, 487 P.3d 730 (Idaho 2021). “Idaho Code section 6-907 requires that claims accurately describe “the conduct and circumstances which brought about the injury or damage, describe the injury or damage, state the time and place the injury or damage occurred, state the names of all persons involved, if known,”…”
Farber v. State, 630 P.2d 685 (Idaho 1981). “, written demands to recover money from the governmental entity, I.C. § 6-902(7), shall be presented to and filed with the secretary of state within 120 days from the date the claim arose or reasonably should have been discovered.”
D.A.F. v. Lieteau & Juv. Corr. Nampa, 456 P.3d 193 (Idaho 2019).
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.