Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 6-908 (2026)
Restriction on allowance of claims.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Restriction on allowance of claims.
No claim or action shall be allowed against a governmental entity or its employee unless the claim has been presented and filed within the time limits prescribed by this act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Overman v. Klein, 654 P.2d 888 (Idaho 1982).
Overman v. Klein, 654 P.2d 888 (Idaho 1982). “ 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…”
Alpine Vill. Co. v. City of McCall, 303 P.3d 617 (Idaho 2013). “First, Alpine argues that the notice requirement of I.C. § 6-908 is procedural, not jurisdictional, and that a failure to give notice could be excused on constitutional or equitable grounds.”
Farber v. State, 630 P.2d 685 (Idaho 1981). “§ 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. I.C. § 6-905. This provides the state time in which to analyze the claim and determine whether to allow or deny the…”
McQuillen v. City of Ammon, 747 P.2d 741 (Idaho 1987). “I.C. § 6-908; Overman v. Klein, 103 Idaho 795 , 654 P.”
Indep. Sch. Dist. of Boise City v. Callister, 539 P.2d 987 (Idaho 1975). “" I.C. § 6-908 requires compliance by filing claims as a prerequisite to an action against a governmental entity.”
Newlan v. State, 535 P.2d 1348 (Idaho 1975). “I.C. § 6-908 states: "Restriction on allowance of claims.”
Allied Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Cnty. of Kootenai, 258 P.3d 340 (Idaho 2011). “I.C. § 6-908. Timely and adequate notice under the ITCA “is a mandatory condition precedent to bringing suit, the failure of which is fatal to a claim, no matter how legitimate.”
Pounds v. Denison, 816 P.2d 982 (Idaho 1991). “Therefore, the defendants were presumed to have acted in the course of their official capacities, and could not be sued because a notice of tort claim was not filed as required by I.C. § 6-908 [and within the time limit provided by § 6-905].”
Davison v. Debest Plumbing, Inc., 416 P.3d 943 (Idaho 2018). “" I.C. § 6-908. Notwithstanding the language that requires a claim be presented and filed with the secretary *949 of a political subdivision, this Court has held the requirements of the ITCA are satisfied when the secretary receives notice of a claim even though it was not…”
Nelson v. Anderson Lumber Co., 99 P.3d 1092 (Idaho Ct. App. 2004). “Because we conclude that the Nelsons failed to establish a duty owed by Fremont County and Allen to the Nelsons, we need not address Fremont County’s and Allen’s claim that the Nelsons failed to timely file a tort claim pursuant to I.C. § 6-908 nor the Nelsons' argument that…”
Ware v. City of Kendrick, 487 P.3d 730 (Idaho 2021). “” I.C. § 6-908. Idaho Code section 6-906 further defines the timing for filing a tort claim against a political subdivision with respect to notice to the entity itself: All claims against a political [subdivision] arising under the provisions of this act and all claims against…”
Greenwade v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n, 808 P.2d 420 (Idaho Ct. App. 1991). “When it is read together with I.C. § 6-908, it is clear that failure to comply with the notice requirement bars a suit.”
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.