Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 67-5231 (2026)
Invalidity of rules not adopted in compliance with this chapter — Time limitation.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Invalidity of rules not adopted in compliance with this chapter — Time limitation.
(1) Rules may be promulgated by an agency only when specifically authorized by statute. A temporary or final rule adopted and becoming effective after July 1, 1993, is voidable unless adopted in substantial compliance with the requirements of this chapter.
(2) A proceeding, either administrative or judicial, to contest any rule on the ground of noncompliance with the procedural requirements of this chapter must be commenced within two (2) years from the effective date of the rule.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2023 · leading case: State v. Felicity Kathleen Haynes, 355 P.3d 1266 (Idaho 2015).
State v. Felicity Kathleen Haynes, 355 P.3d 1266 (Idaho 2015). “The approval and certification standards would constitute a rule under the Act. If they are not adopted in compliance with the Act, they are “voidable unless adopted in substantial compliance with the requirements of this chapter,” I.”
Wood v. ITD, 532 P.3d 404 (Idaho 2023). “, that the relevant rules are “voidable” because they were not “adopted in substantial compliance with the requirements” for rulemaking under the APA (I.C. § 67-5231)—Wood’s briefing does not satisfy Rule 35(6)(a).”
Asarco Inc. v. State, 69 P.3d 139 (Idaho 2003). “As a preliminary matter, contrary to DEQ’s arguments, an agency action is not a rule because it was promulgated according to rulemaking authority and has the force and effect of law.”
State v. Alford, 83 P.3d 139 (Idaho Ct. App. 2004). “Alford also argues that the state failed to prove the scientific reliability of the device as required by I.R.E. 702.”
Hamilton v. Dept of Transp. (Idaho Ct. App. 2016). “Here, however, the state argues that the ISP adopted the breath alcohol testing SOPs as a temporary and proposed rule consistent with the requirements with the IDAPA on September 2, 2014, five days prior to Hamilton’s breath test. Consequently, the issue is whether, at the time…”
Sons & Daughters of Idaho, Inc. v. Idaho Lottery Comm'n, 132 P.3d 416 (Idaho 2006). “Idaho Code § 67-5231 voids any rule that was not “adopted in substantial compliance” with Chapter 52 of the Idaho Code.”
Idaho State Tax Comm'n v. Beacom, 961 P.2d 660 (Idaho Ct. App. 1998). “See I.C. § 67-5231(1) (1993, 1994); I.C. § 67-5203(g) (1992).”
— Idaho Code § 67-5231(1) — 4 cases
State v. Felicity Kathleen Haynes, 355 P.3d 1266 (Idaho 2015). “The approval and certification standards would constitute a rule under the Act. If they are not adopted in compliance with the Act, they are “voidable unless adopted in substantial compliance with the requirements of this chapter,” I.”
Wood v. ITD, 532 P.3d 404 (Idaho 2023). “, that the relevant rules are “voidable” because they were not “adopted in substantial compliance with the requirements” for rulemaking under the APA (I.C. § 67-5231)—Wood’s briefing does not satisfy Rule 35(6)(a).”
State v. Alford, 83 P.3d 139 (Idaho Ct. App. 2004). “Alford also argues that the state failed to prove the scientific reliability of the device as required by I.R.E. 702.”
Idaho State Tax Comm'n v. Beacom, 961 P.2d 660 (Idaho Ct. App. 1998). “See I.C. § 67-5231(1) (1993, 1994); I.C. § 67-5203(g) (1992).”
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.