Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 6-904A (2026)

Exceptions to governmental liability.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Exceptions to governmental liability.

A governmental entity and its employees while acting within the course and scope of their employment and without malice or criminal intent and without reckless, willful and wanton conduct as defined in section 6-904C, Idaho Code, shall not be liable for any claim which:

1. Arises out of the assessment or collection of any tax or fee.

2. Arises out of injury to a person or property by a person under supervision, custody or care of a governmental entity or by or to a person who is on probation, or parole, or who is being supervised as part of a court imposed drug court program, or any work-release program, or by or to a person receiving services from a mental health center, hospital or similar facility.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 25 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · leading case: Harris v. State, Dept. of Health, 847 P.2d 1156 (Idaho 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Harris v. State, Dept. of Health, 847 P.2d 1156 (Idaho 1992). · cites it 63× “This purpose would be frustrated if appellant's narrow construction of "custody" were accepted.”

Hei v. Holzer, 73 P.3d 94 (Idaho 2003). · cites it 48× “In response, the School District interposes I.C. § 6-904A as a shield against liability premised on negligent supervision of Holzer.”

Coonse Ex Rel. Coonse v. Boise Sch. Dist., 979 P.2d 1161 (Idaho 1999). · cites it 63× “Whether a school district is immune from suit under I.C. § 6-904A when the complaint alleges negligent supervision of a student who was consequently harmed as opposed to negligent supervision of third parties who harmed the student.”

Hunter v. State, Dept. of Corr., 57 P.3d 755 (Idaho 2002). · cites it 24× “The district court denied the State's motion for summary judgment on this issue and instructed the jury that the Hunters were required to prove that the State acted either with malice or criminal intent or with reckless, willful and wanton conduct.”

Shubert v. Ada Cnty., 461 P.3d 740 (Idaho 2020). · cites it 38× “This Court granted permissive appeal to address four issues: (1) whether public defenders are entitled to immunity under the common law; (2) whether public defenders are entitled to immunity pursuant to Idaho Code section 6-904; (3) whether the unambiguous language in Idaho Code…”

Sherer v. Pocatello Sch. Dist. 25, 148 P.3d 1232 (Idaho 2006). · cites it 30× “The statute in relevant part reads as follows: A governmental entity and its employees while acting within the course and scope of their employment and without malice or criminal intent and without reckless, willful and wanton conduct as defined in section 6-904C, Idaho Code,…”

Brooks v. Logan, 944 P.2d 709 (Idaho 1997). · cites it 30× “§ 33-512(4) does not provide an independent, separate claim which defeats the immunity protections of I.C. § 6-904A. The district court in this case addressed immunity under I.”

Stoddart v. Pocatello Sch. Dist. 25, 239 P.3d 784 (Idaho 2010). · cites it 10× “The School District moved for summary judgment, arguing that the School District did not owe Cassie Jo a duty of care under the circumstances, that the School District was immune from liability under I.C. § 6-904A, and that the School District was not jointly and severally…”

Hill-Vu Mobile Home Park v. City of Pocatello, 402 P.3d 1041 (Idaho 2017). · cites it 8× “Did the District Court Err in Holding that Recovery of the PILOT Was Barred by Idaho Code Section 6-904A? Idaho Code section 6-904A states, insofar as is relevant: A governmental entity and its employees while acting within the course and scope of their employment and without…”

Greenwade v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n, 808 P.2d 420 (Idaho Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 18× “The district court further held that, even if it did have jurisdiction, the case should be dismissed because, pursuant to I.C. §§ 6-904A and 6-904B, governmental entities and officials are immune from suits arising out of the assessment and collection of taxes.”

Mareci v. Coeur D'Alene Sch. Dist. No. 271, 250 P.3d 791 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 18× “During oral argument on the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs conceded that there was no factual basis supporting a claim against the School District for its failure to prevent the first incident. Plaintiffs’ cause of action is based entirely upon their claim that the…”

Mickelsen v. Sch. Dist. No. 25, 901 P.2d 508 (Idaho 1995). · cites it 24× “” The district court also concluded that the immunity from liability of I.C. § 6-904A(2) barred the Mickelsens’ claim under section 33-512(4) of the Idaho Code (1995) which specifies that school districts have a duty to “protect the morals and health of the pupils.”

Show all 25 citing cases →

— Idaho Code § 6-904A(1) — 1 case

Harris v. State, Dept. of Health, 847 P.2d 1156 (Idaho 1992). “This purpose would be frustrated if appellant's narrow construction of "custody" were accepted.”

— Idaho Code § 6-904A(2) — 12 cases

Harris v. State, Dept. of Health, 847 P.2d 1156 (Idaho 1992). “This purpose would be frustrated if appellant's narrow construction of "custody" were accepted.”

Shubert v. Ada Cnty., 461 P.3d 740 (Idaho 2020). “This Court granted permissive appeal to address four issues: (1) whether public defenders are entitled to immunity under the common law; (2) whether public defenders are entitled to immunity pursuant to Idaho Code section 6-904; (3) whether the unambiguous language in Idaho Code…”

Brooks v. Logan, 944 P.2d 709 (Idaho 1997). “§ 33-512(4) does not provide an independent, separate claim which defeats the immunity protections of I.C. § 6-904A. The district court in this case addressed immunity under I.”

Coonse Ex Rel. Coonse v. Boise Sch. Dist., 979 P.2d 1161 (Idaho 1999). “Whether a school district is immune from suit under I.C. § 6-904A when the complaint alleges negligent supervision of a student who was consequently harmed as opposed to negligent supervision of third parties who harmed the student.”

Mareci v. Coeur D'Alene Sch. Dist. No. 271, 250 P.3d 791 (Idaho 2011). “During oral argument on the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs conceded that there was no factual basis supporting a claim against the School District for its failure to prevent the first incident. Plaintiffs’ cause of action is based entirely upon their claim that the…”

— Idaho Code § 6-904A(l) — 1 case

Harris v. State, Dept. of Health, 847 P.2d 1156 (Idaho 1992). “This purpose would be frustrated if appellant's narrow construction of "custody" were accepted.”

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.