Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 6-905 (2026)

Filing claims against state or employee — Time. 

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

Filing claims against state or employee — Time. 

All claims against the state arising under the provisions of this act and all claims against an employee of the state for any act or omission of the employee within the course or scope of his employment shall be presented to and filed with the secretary of state within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date the claim arose or reasonably should have been discovered, whichever is later.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Farber v. State, 630 P.2d 685 (Idaho 1981).
Farber v. State, 630 P.2d 685 (Idaho 1981). · cites it 48× “I.C. § 6-905 [1] provides: "Filing claims against state or employee — Time.”
Rodriguez v. Dep't of Corr., 29 P.3d 401 (Idaho 2001). · cites it 26× “The State filed a motion to dismiss Rodriguez’s complaint, alleging that Rodriguez failed to comply with the notice requirement of I.C. § 6-905. A hearing on the State’s motion was set for August 30, 1999, but Rodriguez’s counsel did not respond to the motion or *92 appear at…”
Overman v. Klein, 654 P.2d 888 (Idaho 1982). · cites it 48× “Overman to comply with the notice of claim provision of the Idaho Tort Claims Act, I.C. § 6-905. That section provides: "6-905.”
Newlan v. State, 535 P.2d 1348 (Idaho 1975). · cites it 56× “The State moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that a claim for the damages had not been presented and filed with the Secretary of State within 120 days from the date the claim arose, or reasonably should have been discovered, as required by I.C. §§ 6-905 — 908. The…”
Pounds v. Denison, 816 P.2d 982 (Idaho 1991). · cites it 46× “Because Pounds' claim arose no later than May 15, 1985, her last day of work, she does not receive the benefit of the extended filing period as the claim arose before the amendment took effect on July 1, 1985.”
Ware v. City of Kendrick, 487 P.3d 730 (Idaho 2021). · cites it 11× “§ 6-906, with I.C. § 6-905. Ware’s characterization of section 6-905 as the “key provision” is therefore inapt to this case.”
Curtis v. Firth, 850 P.2d 749 (Idaho 1993). · cites it 8× “In permitting the landowners to wait until the project was completed before filing their notice of tort claim under I.C. § 6-905, the Court applied a continuing tort analysis.”
Avila v. Wahlquist, 890 P.2d 331 (Idaho 1995). · cites it 10× “I.C. § 6-905. All such claims must “accurately describe the conduct and circum *748 stances wMch 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, and…”
Anderson v. Spalding, 50 P.3d 1004 (Idaho 2002). · cites it 10× “The Idaho Tort Claims Act, Title 6, Chapter 9 of the Idaho Code, requires that “all claims against an employee of the state for any act or omission of the employee within the course or scope of his employment shall be presented to and filed with the secretary of state within one…”
Leliefeld v. Johnson, 659 P.2d 111 (Idaho 1983). · cites it 4× “This is the standard which this Court applied in upholding the 120-day notice requirement of the Tort Claims Act, I.C. § 6-905, against an attack based on the equal protection clause in Newlan v.”
Renzo v. Idaho State Dep't of Agric., 241 P.3d 950 (Idaho 2010). · cites it 8× “Idaho Code § 6-905 provides: All claims against the state arising under the provisions of this act and all claims against an employee of the state for any act or omission of the employee within the course or scope of his employment shall be presented to and filed with the…”
Harris v. State, Dept. of Health, 847 P.2d 1156 (Idaho 1992). · cites it 4× “On April 30, 1991, the Department filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on the following: (1) plaintiff's failure to timely file a notice of tort claim under I.C. §§ 6-905 and 6-908; (2) governmental immunity based on the "statutory function" exception under I.”
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.