Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 67-5248 (2026)

Contents of orders. 

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

Contents of orders. 

(1) An order must be in writing and shall include:

(a)  A reasoned statement in support of the decision. Findings of fact, if set forth in statutory language, shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts of record supporting the findings.
(b)  A statement of the available procedures and applicable time limits for seeking reconsideration or other administrative relief.
(2)  Findings of fact must be based exclusively on the evidence in the record of the contested case and on matters officially noticed in that proceeding.
(3)  All parties to the contested case shall be served with a copy of the order. The order shall be accompanied by proof of service stating the service date, each party who was served and the method(s) of service.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases, 1995–2019 · leading case: Idaho Ground Water Appropriators v. Dept of Water Resources (42775) & City of Pocatello v. Rangen, Inc. (42836), 369 P.3d 897 (Idaho 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Idaho Ground Water Appropriators v. Dept of Water Resources (42775) & City of Pocatello v. Rangen, Inc. (42836), 369 P.3d 897 (Idaho 2016). · cites it 16× “Accordingly, the Director did not abuse his discretion by failing to account for model error when implementing the Great Rift trim line. 25 C. The District Court did not err in concluding that the Director provided a reasoned statement to support the curtailment order under…”
Marcia T. Turner, L.L.C. v. City of Twin Falls, 159 P.3d 840 (Idaho 2007). · cites it 4× “Just as agencies must issue a reasoned statement for their conclusions — I.C. § 67-5248 (which requirement formed part of the basis for the court's rule in Woodfield, see 127 Idaho at 746 , 905 P.”
Davisco Foods Int'l, Inc. v. Gooding Cnty., 118 P.3d 116 (Idaho 2005). · cites it 4× “Just as agencies must issue a reasoned statement for their conclusions — I.C. § 67-5248 (which requirement formed part of the basis for the court's rule in Woodfield, see 127 Idaho at 746 , 905 P.”
Crown Point Dev., Inc. v. City of Sun Valley, 156 P.3d 573 (Idaho 2007). · cites it 2× “” I.C. § 67-5248(1)(a). A finding of fact is a determination of a fact supported by the evidence in the record.”
City of Eagle v. Idaho Dep't of Water Resources, 247 P.3d 1037 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 4× “See I.C. § 67-5248(3); IDAPA 37.01.01.0555. However, as will be discussed in Section B of this opinion, our eases establish that an agency must clearly notify the public as to when an order is final so that interested persons can timely appeal.”
Sopatyk v. Lemhi Cnty., 264 P.3d 916 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 2× “Likewise, the highway-validation statute is quite different from the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that agency orders contain reasoned explanations of decisions and that factual findings “shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the…”
St. Luke's Health Sys., Ltd. v. Bd. of Commissioners of Gem Cnty., 435 P.3d 1121 (Idaho 2019). · cites it 4× “Findings of fact, if set forth in statutory language, shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts of record supporting the findings.”
Woodfield v. Bd. of Prof'l Discipline of the Idaho State Bd. of Med., 905 P.2d 1047 (Idaho Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 67-5248. Findings of fact must be based exclusively on the evidence in the record and on matters officially noticed in that proceeding.”
Masterson v. Idaho Dep't of Transp., 244 P.3d 625 (Idaho Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “” I.C. § 67-5248(2). Therefore, we hold that, because the CMI materials were not properly officially noticed, the hearing officer erred in relying on those materials when making'his findings of fact.”
In Re Distrib. of Water to Various Water Rights, 315 P.3d 828 (Idaho 2013). · cites it 2× “” I.C. § 67-5248 provides that “[a]n order must be in writing and shall include: (a) A reasoned statement in support of the decision.”
Laurino v. Bd. of Prof'l Discipline, 51 P.3d 410 (Idaho 2002). · cites it 2× “See I.C. § 67-5248. 3 . The Idaho Court of Appeals has stated: Generally speaking, findings based on witness credibility depend critically on observation of the witness.”
Sons & Daughters of Idaho, Inc. v. Idaho Lottery Comm'n, 156 P.3d 524 (Idaho 2007). · cites it 2× “Idaho Code § 67-5248 (1)(a) states that an order must include “a reasoned statement in support of the decision.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Idaho Code § 67-5248(1) — 2 cases
St. Luke's Health Sys., Ltd. v. Bd. of Commissioners of Gem Cnty., 435 P.3d 1121 (Idaho 2019). “Findings of fact, if set forth in statutory language, shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts of record supporting the findings.”
St. Lukes v. Bd of Commissioners of Gem Co (Idaho 2019).
— Idaho Code § 67-5248(1)(a) — 4 cases
Crown Point Dev., Inc. v. City of Sun Valley, 156 P.3d 573 (Idaho 2007). “” I.C. § 67-5248(1)(a). A finding of fact is a determination of a fact supported by the evidence in the record.”
St. Luke's Health Sys., Ltd. v. Bd. of Commissioners of Gem Cnty., 435 P.3d 1121 (Idaho 2019). “Findings of fact, if set forth in statutory language, shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts of record supporting the findings.”
Peckham v. Idaho State Bd. of Dentistry, 303 P.3d 205 (Idaho 2013).
St. Lukes v. Bd of Commissioners of Gem Co (Idaho 2019).
— Idaho Code § 67-5248(2) — 1 case
Masterson v. Idaho Dep't of Transp., 244 P.3d 625 (Idaho Ct. App. 2010). “” I.C. § 67-5248(2). Therefore, we hold that, because the CMI materials were not properly officially noticed, the hearing officer erred in relying on those materials when making'his findings of fact.”
— Idaho Code § 67-5248(3) — 1 case
City of Eagle v. Idaho Dep't of Water Resources, 247 P.3d 1037 (Idaho 2011). “See I.C. § 67-5248(3); IDAPA 37.01.01.0555. However, as will be discussed in Section B of this opinion, our eases establish that an agency must clearly notify the public as to when an order is final so that interested persons can timely appeal.”
— Idaho Code § 67-5248(a) — 1 case
Idaho Ground Water Appropriators v. Dept of Water Resources (42775) & City of Pocatello v. Rangen, Inc. (42836), 369 P.3d 897 (Idaho 2016). “Accordingly, the Director did not abuse his discretion by failing to account for model error when implementing the Great Rift trim line. 25 C. The District Court did not err in concluding that the Director provided a reasoned statement to support the curtailment order under…”
— Idaho Code § 67-5248(l)(a) — 1 case
Sopatyk v. Lemhi Cnty., 264 P.3d 916 (Idaho 2011). “Likewise, the highway-validation statute is quite different from the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that agency orders contain reasoned explanations of decisions and that factual findings “shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the…”
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.