Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 67-5244 (2026)

Review of recommended orders.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Review of recommended orders.

(1) A recommended order shall include a statement of the schedule for consideration of that order by the agency head or his designee. The agency head shall allow all parties to request review of the recommended order, to present briefs on the issues, and may allow all parties to participate in oral argument.

(2) Unless otherwise required, the agency head shall either:

(a) issue a final order in writing within fifty-six (56) days of the receipt of the final briefs or oral argument, whichever is later, unless the period is waived or extended with the written consent of all parties or for good cause shown;

(b) remand the matter for additional hearings; or

(3) The agency head on review of the recommended decision shall exercise all the decision-making power that he would have had if the agency head had presided over the hearing.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1996–2013 · leading case: Laughy v. Idaho Dep't of Transp., 243 P.3d 1055 (Idaho 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Laughy v. Idaho Dep't of Transp., 243 P.3d 1055 (Idaho 2010). · cites it 8× “A recommended order becomes final only after review by the agency head in accordance with Idaho Code § 67-5244 . Id. There is no contention that the Idaho Transportation Board reviewed either of these letters.”

Westway Constr., Inc. v. Idaho Transp. Dep't, 73 P.3d 721 (Idaho 2003). · cites it 2× “A recommended order becomes final only after review by the agency head in accordance with Idaho Code § 67-5244 . Id. There is no contention that the Idaho Transportation Board reviewed either of these letters.”

In Re Distrib. of Water to Various Water Rights, 315 P.3d 828 (Idaho 2013). · cites it 4× “” In its July 24, 2009, order on petition for judicial review, the district court held that by issuing separate final orders, the Director acted contrary to I.C. §§ 67-5244, 67-5246, and 67-5248, as well as IDWR Administrative Rules 720 and 740, and thus abused his discretion.”

Erickson v. Idaho Bd. of Reg. of Prof'l Engineers & Prof'l Land Surveyors, 203 P.3d 1251 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 2× “Both Idaho Code §§ 67-5244 (2)(a) and 67-5245(6)(a) require an agency head to “issue a final order in writing.”

Laurino v. Bd. of Prof'l Discipline, 51 P.3d 410 (Idaho 2002). · cites it 2× “The Board independently reviewed the decision of the hearing officer and his recommended dismissal of the complaint, pursuant *601 to I.C. § 67-5244. On November 5,1999, the Board issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law and final order.”

Dupont v. Idaho State Bd. of Land Com'rs, 7 P.3d 1095 (Idaho 2000). · cites it 2× “See I.C. § 67-5244. Thus, even if the hearing officer's recommendations were based on an incorrect standard of review, as *1100 long as the Board applied the correct standard in its decision, the Board's decision is still valid.”

N. Frontiers, Inc. v. State ex rel. Cade, 926 P.2d 213 (Idaho Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “Under I.C. § 67-5244, the head of the agency shall exercise all the decision-making power on review of the recommended decision that he or she would have had if the agency head had presided over the hearing.”

Dupont v. Idaho State Bd. of Land Commissioners, 7 P.3d 1095 (Idaho 2000). · cites it 2× “See I.C. § 67-5244. Thus, even if the hearing officer’s recommendations were based on an incorrect standard of review, as *623 long as the Board applied the correct standard in its decision, the Board’s decision is still valid.”

Laughy v. ConocoPhillips Co. (Idaho 2010). · cites it 4× “A recommended order becomes final only after review by the agency head in accordance with Idaho Code § 67-5244 . Id. There is no contention that the Idaho Transportation Board reviewed either of these letters.”

A&B Irrigation v. ID Dpt of Water Resources (Idaho 2013). · cites it 4× “” In its July 24, 2009, order on petition for judicial review, the district court held that by issuing separate final orders, the Director acted contrary to I.C. §§ 67-5244, 67-5246, and 67-5248, as well as IDWR Administrative Rules 720 and 740, and thus abused his discretion.”

— Idaho Code § 67-5244(2)(a) — 2 cases

In Re Distrib. of Water to Various Water Rights, 315 P.3d 828 (Idaho 2013). “” In its July 24, 2009, order on petition for judicial review, the district court held that by issuing separate final orders, the Director acted contrary to I.C. §§ 67-5244, 67-5246, and 67-5248, as well as IDWR Administrative Rules 720 and 740, and thus abused his discretion.”

A&B Irrigation v. ID Dpt of Water Resources (Idaho 2013). “” In its July 24, 2009, order on petition for judicial review, the district court held that by issuing separate final orders, the Director acted contrary to I.C. §§ 67-5244, 67-5246, and 67-5248, as well as IDWR Administrative Rules 720 and 740, and thus abused his discretion.”

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.