Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 6-911 (2026)

Limitation of actions. 

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

Limitation of actions. 

Every claim against a governmental entity permitted under the provisions of this act or against an employee of a governmental entity shall be forever barred, unless an action is begun within two (2) years after the date the claim arose or reasonably should have been discovered, whichever is later.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: Walker v. Shoshone Cnty., 739 P.2d 290 (Idaho 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Walker v. Shoshone Cnty., 739 P.2d 290 (Idaho 1987). · cites it 16× “" The Walkers raise two arguments as to why the statute is inapplicable: (1) the issue is not before the Court; and (2) the statute does not apply to actions brought under the Idaho Tort Claims Act, and is in *292 fact, superseded by the two-year statute of limitations in I.C. §…”
Theriault v. AH Robins Co., Inc., 698 P.2d 365 (Idaho 1985). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 5-237 states that actions brought against the directors or stockholders of a corporation must be brought within " three years after the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts upon which .”
Farber v. State, 630 P.2d 685 (Idaho 1981). · cites it 4× “§ 6-905, it must be remembered that the 120 day notice provision of I.C. § 6-905 is not itself a statute of limitation.”
McQuillen v. City of Ammon, 747 P.2d 741 (Idaho 1987). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 6-911; Farber v. State, 102 Idaho 398 , 630 P.”
Eller v. Idaho State Police, 443 P.3d 161 (Idaho 2019). · cites it 2× “In contrast, the Idaho Legislature passed the Whistleblower Act over twenty years later in 1994 "to protect the integrity of government by providing a legal cause of action for public employees who experience adverse action from their employer as a result of reporting waste and…”
Indep. Sch. Dist. of Boise City v. Callister, 539 P.2d 987 (Idaho 1975). · cites it 4× “Respondent here argues that the notice of claim requirement is but a statute of limitations and thus tolled for minors.”
Esterbrook v. State, 863 P.2d 349 (Idaho 1993). · cites it 6× “Thus the Department argues that the two-year statute of limitations in I.C. § 6-911 began to run in 1981, well before the accident ever occurred.”
Carman v. Carman, 758 P.2d 710 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 6× “As mentioned, I.C. § 6-911 is the applicable statute of limitation under the Idaho Tort Claims Act.”
Noak v. Idaho Dep't of Corr., 271 P.3d 703 (Idaho 2012). · cites it 4× “Noak argues that this Court should not even consider the statute-of-limitations question because IDOC has not raised the issue on cross-appeal.”
McCabe v. Craven, 188 P.3d 896 (Idaho 2008). · cites it 2× “According to the district court, the claim was untimely regardless of whether the statute of limitations applicable to the § 1983 claim applied, or whether the Tort Claims Act statute of limitations applied (I.”
Herrera v. Conner, 729 P.2d 1075 (Idaho Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “At the time Herrera filed his complaint, I.C. § 6-911 of the Idaho Tort Claims Act provided that an action against a governmental entity or its employee was barred unless suit was instituted within two years of filing a claim with the governmental entity.”
Union Pac. R. Co. v. State of Idaho, 654 F. Supp. 1236 (D. Idaho 1987). · cites it 4× “Because the cause of action in this case arose in 1984, and claim was not filed in this court until September of 1986, it is argued that the claim should be barred.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
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.