Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 67-2340 (2026)

regulation of auxiliary containers. 

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

regulation of auxiliary containers. 

(1)  As used in this section, "auxiliary container" means reusable bags, disposable bags, boxes, cups and bottles which are made of cloth, paper, plastic, extruded polystyrene or similar materials that are designed for one-time use or for transporting merchandise or food from food and retail facilities.

(2)  Any regulation regarding the use, disposition or sale or any imposition of any prohibition, restriction, fee imposition or taxation of auxiliary containers at the retail, manufacturer or distributor setting shall be imposed only by statute enacted by the legislature.
(3)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or limit any county or municipal curbside recycling program or other designated residential or commercial recycling location.
(4)  The provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to the use of auxiliary containers in any event organized, sponsored or permitted by a county, municipality or school district on a property owned by such county, municipality or school district.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case: State v. Yzaguirre, 163 P.3d 1183 (Idaho 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Yzaguirre, 163 P.3d 1183 (Idaho 2007). · cites it 12× “that the litigation exception in the Open Meeting Law ( Idaho Code §§ 67-2340 , et seq.) does not require the presence of legal counsel.”
Idaho Water Resource Bd. v. Kramer, 548 P.2d 35 (Idaho 1976). · cites it 8× “§ 42-1733(b) and I.C. § 67-2340 et seq. Appellant submits there is no language within Article III of the agreem- nt, as amended, which indicates that the meetings of the Administrative Committee will be made public.”
City of McCall v. Buxton, 201 P.3d 629 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 5× “Idaho’s open meeting laws are codified at Idaho Code §§ 67-2340 through 67-2347. Section 67-2340 “declares that it is the policy of this state that the formation of public policy is public business and shall not be conducted in secret.”
Bradbury v. Idaho Jud. Council, 28 P.3d 1006 (Idaho 2001). · cites it 4× “Bradbury sought an order from the district court to the Council to provide the material pursuant to I.C. § 67-2340 et seq. The Council moved to dismiss the action, and the district court granted the motion, determining that the Council had properly denied the request and that…”
Gardner v. Evans, 719 P.2d 1185 (Idaho 1986). · cites it 6× “The plaintiffs — Gardner, Walhof, and John Cheadle, a deputy director of the Idaho Commission for the Blind at the time of his firing — allege that Ugaki and Barnes decided to fire Walhof in a manner viola-tive of Idaho’s Open Meetings Law, I.C. § 67-2340 et seq. This action,…”
Petersen v. Franklin Cnty., 938 P.2d 1214 (Idaho 1997). · cites it 5× “The district court issued Supplemental Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment, in which it determined that the County had a land use plan but no zoning ordinance, and there was no evidence that the site location was at variance with that plan.”
Idaho Press Club, Inc. v. State Legislature, 132 P.3d 397 (Idaho 2006). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 67-2340 (emphasis added). [13] Thus, it is not at all inconsistent to say that "business" in art.”
Thomas Arnold v. City of Stanley, 345 P.3d 1008 (Idaho 2015). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 67-2340. Quoting Section 67-2342(1), they argue the open meeting law broadly requires that “all meetings of a governing body of a public agency shall be open to the public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting except as otherwise provided by this act.”
Richard H. Leavitt v. Olivia Craven, 302 P.3d 1 (Idaho 2012). · cites it 4× “Leavitt’s complaint is predicated upon his contention that Idaho’s open meetings law, I.C. § 67-2340, et seq., required that the Commission conduct an open hearing on his request for hearing on his petition for commutation rather than decide the matter in executive session.”
Ameritel Inns, Inc. v. Greater Boise Auditorium Dist., 119 P.3d 624 (Idaho 2005). · cites it 2× “On January 21, 2004, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding a claim that the Defendants violated the open meeting laws in Idaho Code §§ 67-2340 et seq. The district court heard the Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order on January 22, 2004.”
State Ex Rel. Roark v. City of Hailey, 633 P.2d 576 (Idaho 1981). · cites it 6× “1 The first question presented is whether the annexation ordinance was rendered invalid because of violations of the Idaho Open Meetings Act, I.C. §§ 67-2340 et seq. The act defines a meeting as “the convening of a governing body of a public agency to make a decision or to…”
Noble v. Kootenai Cnty., 231 P.3d 1034 (Idaho 2010). · cites it 4× “Applicants allege that the Board conducted its visit to the site of the proposed subdivision in a manner that violated Idaho’s open meeting laws, I.C. § 67-2340, et seq., 3 and was a violation of Applicants’ due process rights.”
Show all 23 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.