Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 67-5271 (2026)

Exhaustion of administrative remedies.

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Exhaustion of administrative remedies.

(1) A person is not entitled to judicial review of an agency action until that person has exhausted all administrative remedies required in this chapter.

(2) A preliminary, procedural, or intermediate agency action or ruling is immediately reviewable if review of the final agency action would not provide an adequate remedy.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 43 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Am. Falls Reservoir Dist. No. 2 v. Idaho Dep't of Water Resources, 154 P.3d 433 (Idaho 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Am. Falls Reservoir Dist. No. 2 v. Idaho Dep't of Water Resources, 154 P.3d 433 (Idaho 2007). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 67-5271; Regan v. Kootenai County, 140 Idaho 721, 724 , 100 P.”

Highlands Dev. Corp. v. City of Boise, 188 P.3d 900 (Idaho 2008). · cites it 4× “the city won't give it to me,' he doesn't have anything to complain about; has he?" The district court continued, "I think [Highlands] has to show the city ... [its] hand before [it is] going to get any relief in this; and then [it] can appeal, I suppose.”

Lochsa Falls, L.L.C. v. State, 207 P.3d 963 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 67-5271; Petersen v. Franklin County, 130 Idaho 176, 185 , 938 P.”

Laughy v. Idaho Dep't of Transp., 243 P.3d 1055 (Idaho 2010). · cites it 6× “[7] Allowing only a party, and not simply any interested person, to petition for judicial review of an order is a natural corollary to the exhaustion doctrine, which requires all petitioners to exhaust their administrative remedies before appealing to the district court.”

Gibson v. Ada Cnty., 133 P.3d 1211 (Idaho 2006). · cites it 4× “Idaho Code § 67-5271 (1) provides that “[a] person is not entitled to judicial review of an agency action until that person has exhaustr ed all administrative remedies.”

Regan v. Kootenai Cnty., 100 P.3d 615 (Idaho 2004). · cites it 4× “The Hearing Examiner shall decide the same within a reasonable time, which shall not exceed thirty (30) days following the hearing. At the hearing, any affected party may appear in person or by agent or attorney.”

Platz v. State, Transp. Dep't, 303 P.3d 647 (Idaho Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 8× “Thus, it is within the hearing officer’s discretion to either grant or deny a stay. 11 If the hearing officer chooses to deny the stay, then the driver may appeal that interlocutory decision to the district court under I.”

Wanner v. State, Dep't of Transp., 244 P.3d 1250 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 67-5271(1). “As a general rule, a party must exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to the courts to challenge the validity of administrative acts.”

Williams v. State, Bd. of Real Est. Appraisers, 239 P.3d 780 (Idaho 2010). · cites it 4× “However, Idaho Code § 67-5271 provides guidance. Subsection (1) states, “A person is not entitled to judicial review of an agency action 2 until that person has exhausted all administrative remedies required in this chapter.”

Sagewillow, Inc. v. Idaho Dep't of Water Resources, 70 P.3d 669 (Idaho 2003). · cites it 2× “Idaho Code § 67-5270 (3) (2001) provides, "A party aggrieved by a final order in a contested case decided by an agency other than the industrial commission or the public utilities commission *684 is entitled to judicial review under this chapter if the person complies with the…”

Canal/Norcrest/Columbus Action Comm. v. City of Boise, 39 P.3d 606 (Idaho 2001). · cites it 2× “STANDARD OF REVIEW The Local Land Use Planning Act provides that a person affected and aggrieved by a decision of a land use commission or governing board may within twenty-eight days after all remedies have been exhausted under local ordinances seek judicial review as provided…”

Dry Creek Partners, LLC v. Ada Cnty. Commissioners Ex Rel. State, 217 P.3d 1282 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 67-5271. On appeal from a decision rendered by the district court while acting in its appellate capacity under IDAPA, this Court directly reviews the district court’s decision.”

Show all 43 citing cases →

— Idaho Code § 67-5271(1) — 11 cases

Highlands Dev. Corp. v. City of Boise, 188 P.3d 900 (Idaho 2008). “the city won't give it to me,' he doesn't have anything to complain about; has he?" The district court continued, "I think [Highlands] has to show the city ... [its] hand before [it is] going to get any relief in this; and then [it] can appeal, I suppose.”

Wanner v. State, Dep't of Transp., 244 P.3d 1250 (Idaho 2011). “I.C. § 67-5271(1). “As a general rule, a party must exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to the courts to challenge the validity of administrative acts.”

Canal/Norcrest/Columbus Action Comm. v. City of Boise, 39 P.3d 606 (Idaho 2001). “STANDARD OF REVIEW The Local Land Use Planning Act provides that a person affected and aggrieved by a decision of a land use commission or governing board may within twenty-eight days after all remedies have been exhausted under local ordinances seek judicial review as provided…”

Gibson v. Ada Cnty., 133 P.3d 1211 (Idaho 2006). “Idaho Code § 67-5271 (1) provides that “[a] person is not entitled to judicial review of an agency action until that person has exhaustr ed all administrative remedies.”

Regan v. Kootenai Cnty., 100 P.3d 615 (Idaho 2004). “The Hearing Examiner shall decide the same within a reasonable time, which shall not exceed thirty (30) days following the hearing. At the hearing, any affected party may appear in person or by agent or attorney.”

— Idaho Code § 67-5271(2) — 5 cases

Platz v. State, Transp. Dep't, 303 P.3d 647 (Idaho Ct. App. 2013). “Thus, it is within the hearing officer’s discretion to either grant or deny a stay. 11 If the hearing officer chooses to deny the stay, then the driver may appeal that interlocutory decision to the district court under I.”

Arthur v. Shoshone Cnty., 993 P.2d 617 (Idaho Ct. App. 2000).

Ricks v. State of Idaho Contractors Bd., 435 P.3d 1 (Idaho Ct. App. 2018).

George Besaw, Jr. v. Transp. Dept. (Idaho Ct. App. 2013).

Ricks v. State of Idaho Contractors Bd. (Idaho Ct. App. 2018).

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.