Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 61-626 (2026)
Reconsideration — Procedure — Order not stayed — Change of original order.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Reconsideration — Procedure — Order not stayed — Change of original order.
(1) After an order has been made by the commission, any corporation, public utility or person interested therein shall have the right, within twenty-one (21) days after the date of said order, to petition for reconsideration in respect to any matter determined therein. Within seven (7) days after any corporation, public utility or person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other corporation, public utility, or person may cross-petition for reconsideration in response to any issues raised in any petition for reconsideration. Cross-petitions for reconsideration may be granted if any petition for reconsideration to which they respond is granted on the issues to which the cross-petition is directed, but cross-petitions for reconsideration will be denied when the petitions for reconsideration to which they are directed are denied.
(2) Within twenty-eight (28) days after the filing of a petition for reconsideration the commission shall determine whether or not it will grant such reconsideration, and make and enter its order accordingly. If reconsideration be granted, said order shall specify how the matter will be reconsidered and whether any cross-petitions for reconsideration will be granted. The matter must be reheard, or written briefs, comments or interrogatories must be filed, within thirteen (13) weeks after the date for filing petitions for reconsideration. If reconsideration is ordered, the commission must issue its order upon reconsideration within twenty-eight (28) days after the matter is finally submitted for reconsideration.
(3) A petition for such reconsideration shall not excuse any corporation, public utility or person from complying with or obeying any order or any requirement of any order of the commission or operate in any manner, to stay or postpone the enforcement thereof, except as the commission may by order direct. If after reconsideration, including consideration of matters arising since the making of the order, the commission shall be of the opinion that the original order or any part thereof is in any respect unjust or unwarranted or should be changed, the commission may abrogate or change the same. An order made after any such reconsideration, abrogating or changing the original order, shall have the same force and effect as an original order, and shall not affect any right or the enforcement of any right arising from or by virtue of the original order.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1955–1997 · leading case: Utah Power & Light Co. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 685 P.2d 276 (Idaho 1984).
Utah Power & Light Co. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 685 P.2d 276 (Idaho 1984). “However, I.C. § 61-626 [6] specifically provides that (1) a motion for rehearing does not operate to stay enforcement of the preceding order; and (2) an order following rehearing cannot be retroactively applied.”
Idaho Underground Water Users Ass'n v. Idaho Power Co., 404 P.2d 859 (Idaho 1965). “In answer to this challenge, the Company asserts that under I.C. § 61-626 and § 61-627 matters not raised in the petition for rehearing will not be considered by this court; and further that appellant's petition for rehearing failed to present any issue as to the sufficiency of…”
Washington Water Power Co. v. Kootenai Env't All., 591 P.2d 122 (Idaho 1979). “12171 within the 20-day period as required by I.C. § 61-626, and Rule 11.1 of the Rules of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission.”
Washington Water Power Co. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 617 P.2d 1242 (Idaho 1980). “13856, nonetheless the Commission did consider the issue and reaffirm the correctness of its suspension.”
Utah-Idaho Sugar Co. v. Intermountain Gas Co., 597 P.2d 1058 (Idaho 1979). “Final orders of the Commission should ordinarily be challenged either by petition to the Commission for rehearing or by appeal to this Court as provided by I.C. §§ 61-626 and -627; Id. Const. Art. 5, § 9.”
Eagle Water Co. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 940 P.2d 1133 (Idaho 1997). “Under I.C. § 61-626(1) a petition for reconsideration must be filed within twenty-one days after the date of the order from which reconsideration is sought.”
Key Transp., Inc. v. Trans Magic Airlines Corp., 524 P.2d 1338 (Idaho 1974). “I.C. § 61-626, 61-627; Idaho Underground Water Users Ass'n v.”
Rosebud Enter., Inc. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 917 P.2d 781 (Idaho 1996). “THIS COURT WILL NOT DETERMINE THE RATES ROSEBUD IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE IF IT ALTERS ITS PROJECT Rosebud argues that as a result of Idaho Power’s unrelenting opposition to Rosebud’s facility it should be allowed to adjust its fuel project location and size to reflect delays…”
Grover v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 364 P.2d 167 (Idaho 1961). “I.C. § 61-626, as it existed at the time of such orders, provided for application for rehearing without specifying any time limit for filing such application.”
Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Jones, 280 P.2d 1067 (Idaho 1955). “At the time the district court entered its first order and decree May 25, 1953, the •company had applied for a rehearing of its initial application for increase in rates, by the commission; as provided by I.C. § 61-626. The commission on such rehearing again denied the company's…”
— Idaho Code § 61-626(1) — 1 case
Eagle Water Co. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 940 P.2d 1133 (Idaho 1997). “Under I.C. § 61-626(1) a petition for reconsideration must be filed within twenty-one days after the date of the order from which reconsideration is sought.”
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.