Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 67-5251 (2026)

Evidence — Official notice. 

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

Evidence — Official notice. 

(1) The presiding officer may exclude evidence that is irrelevant, unduly repetitious, or excludable on constitutional or statutory grounds, or on the basis of any evidentiary privilege provided by statute or recognized in the courts of this state. All other evidence may be admitted if it is of a type commonly relied on by prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs.

(2)  Any part of the evidence may be received in written form if doing so will expedite the hearing without substantially prejudicing the interests of any party.
(3)  The parties may stipulate as to some or all of the facts at issue in the contested case.
(4)  The presiding officer may request such additional information from any party as he may require to decide the contested case.
(5)  Documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts, if the original is not readily available. Upon request, parties shall be given an opportunity to compare the copy with the original if available.
(6)  Testimony shall be made under oath or affirmation.
(7)  Official notice may be taken of:
(a)  Any facts that could be judicially noticed in the courts of this state; and
(b)  Generally recognized technical or scientific facts within the agency’s specialized knowledge.
Parties shall be notified of the specific facts or material noticed and the source thereof, including any staff memoranda and data. Notice should be provided either before or during the hearing, and must be provided before the issuance of any order that is based in whole or in part on facts or material noticed. Parties must be afforded a timely and meaningful opportunity to contest and rebut the facts or material so noticed. When the presiding officer proposes to notice staff memoranda or reports, a responsible staff member shall be made available for cross-examination if any party so requests.
(8)  The agency’s or presiding officer’s experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge may be utilized in the evaluation of the evidence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1995–2024 · leading case: Wood v. ITD, 532 P.3d 404 (Idaho 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wood v. ITD, 532 P.3d 404 (Idaho 2023). · cites it 8× “Under section 67-5251, the legislature has instructed that evidence may be admitted in an ALS proceeding if, among other things, it is not irrelevant, unduly repetitious, excludable on constitutional, statutory, or privilege grounds, and so long as it is “of a type commonly…”
Masterson v. Idaho Dep't of Transp., 244 P.3d 625 (Idaho Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 14× “2 Specifically, Masterson argues that the hearing officer erred in relying on information that was not placed into evidence and not properly officially noticed pursuant to I.C. § 67-5251(4). Idaho Code Section 67-5251(4) provides that an administrative hearing officer may take…”
Wheeler v. Idaho Transp. Dep't, 223 P.3d 761 (Idaho Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “In addition, the rules of evidence that govern judicial proceedings do not apply, I.C. § 67-5251, I.R.E. 101(b), and the burden of proof rests on the driver rather than on the State.”
Bell v. Idaho Transp. Dep't, 262 P.3d 1030 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 6× “Idaho Code § 67-5251 (1) provides that “evidence may be admitted if it is of a type commonly relied upon by prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs.”
Higgins v. Larry Miller Subaru-Mitsubishi, 175 P.3d 163 (Idaho 2007). · cites it 4× “Under the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act, the Commission may exclude evidence that is irrelevant, unduly repetitious, or excludable on constitutional or statutory grounds, or on the basis of any evidentiary privilege provided by statute or recognized in the courts of Idaho.”
Stolle v. Bennett, 156 P.3d 545 (Idaho 2007). · cites it 2× “Idaho Code § 67-5251 , controlling the admission of evidence in proceedings governed by the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act, states that evidence may be admitted by the presiding officer if “it is of a type commonly relied upon by prudent persons in the conduct of their…”
Erickson v. Idaho Bd. of Reg. of Prof'l Engineers & Prof'l Land Surveyors, 203 P.3d 1251 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 2× “Idaho Code § 67-5251 (4) provides that before taking official notice of facts, “[n]otiee .”
Citizens Allied for Integrity & Acct., Inc. v. Schultz, 335 F. Supp. 3d 1216 (D. Idaho 2018). · cites it 2× “Defendants counter that the hearing complied with all procedural due process requirements, and the hearing officer was authorized to exclude irrelevant evidence under Idaho Code § 67-5251 . Def's Br. at 15, Dkt.”
Nelson v. State of Idaho, Indus. Special Indem. Fund, 553 P.3d 953 (Idaho 2024). · cites it 2× “Idaho Code section 67-5251(1) provides that, in proceedings before the Commission, “evidence may be admitted if it is of a type commonly relied upon by prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs.”
Chisholm v. Idaho Dept. of Water Resources, 125 P.3d 515 (Idaho 2005). · cites it 2× “IDAPA 37.01.01.600. "The presiding officer, with or without objection, may exclude evidence that is irrelevant, unduly repetitious, inadmissible on constitutional or statutory grounds, or on the basis of any evidentiary privilege provided by statute or recognized in the courts…”
Peck v. State, Dep't of Transp., 278 P.3d 439 (Idaho Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “See I.C. § 67-5251(1) (stating a hearing officer may admit evidence “if it is of a type commonly relied upon by prudent persons”).”
Laurino v. Bd. of Prof'l Discipline, 51 P.3d 410 (Idaho 2002). · cites it 2× “The Board, however, may not use its expertise as a substitute for evidence in the record, since the requirement for administrative decisions based on substantial evidence and reasoned findings 2 — which provide the basis for effective judicial review — would become meaningless…”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Idaho Code § 67-5251(1) — 10 cases
Wheeler v. Idaho Transp. Dep't, 223 P.3d 761 (Idaho Ct. App. 2009). “In addition, the rules of evidence that govern judicial proceedings do not apply, I.C. § 67-5251, I.R.E. 101(b), and the burden of proof rests on the driver rather than on the State.”
Wood v. ITD, 532 P.3d 404 (Idaho 2023). “Under section 67-5251, the legislature has instructed that evidence may be admitted in an ALS proceeding if, among other things, it is not irrelevant, unduly repetitious, excludable on constitutional, statutory, or privilege grounds, and so long as it is “of a type commonly…”
Bell v. Idaho Transp. Dep't, 262 P.3d 1030 (Idaho 2011). “Idaho Code § 67-5251 (1) provides that “evidence may be admitted if it is of a type commonly relied upon by prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs.”
Nelson v. State of Idaho, Indus. Special Indem. Fund, 553 P.3d 953 (Idaho 2024). “Idaho Code section 67-5251(1) provides that, in proceedings before the Commission, “evidence may be admitted if it is of a type commonly relied upon by prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs.”
Chisholm v. Idaho Dept. of Water Resources, 125 P.3d 515 (Idaho 2005). “IDAPA 37.01.01.600. "The presiding officer, with or without objection, may exclude evidence that is irrelevant, unduly repetitious, inadmissible on constitutional or statutory grounds, or on the basis of any evidentiary privilege provided by statute or recognized in the courts…”
— Idaho Code § 67-5251(4) — 3 cases
Masterson v. Idaho Dep't of Transp., 244 P.3d 625 (Idaho Ct. App. 2010). “2 Specifically, Masterson argues that the hearing officer erred in relying on information that was not placed into evidence and not properly officially noticed pursuant to I.C. § 67-5251(4). Idaho Code Section 67-5251(4) provides that an administrative hearing officer may take…”
Bell v. Idaho Transp. Dep't, 262 P.3d 1030 (Idaho 2011). “Idaho Code § 67-5251 (1) provides that “evidence may be admitted if it is of a type commonly relied upon by prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs.”
Hamish Allan Bell v. Idaho Transp. Dep't (Idaho Ct. App. 2011).
— Idaho Code § 67-5251(5) — 2 cases
Laurino v. Bd. of Prof'l Discipline, 51 P.3d 410 (Idaho 2002). “The Board, however, may not use its expertise as a substitute for evidence in the record, since the requirement for administrative decisions based on substantial evidence and reasoned findings 2 — which provide the basis for effective judicial review — would become meaningless…”
Pines, D.O. v. State Bd. of Med., 351 P.3d 1203 (Idaho 2015).
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.