Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 67-5276 (2026)

Additional evidence. 

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

Additional evidence. 

(1) If, before the date set for hearing, application is made to the court for leave to present additional evidence and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is material, relates to the validity of the agency action, and that:

(a)  there were good reasons for failure to present it in the proceeding before the agency, the court may remand the matter to the agency with directions that the agency receive additional evidence and conduct additional factfinding.
(b)  there were alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency, the court may take proof on the matter.
(2)  The agency may modify its action by reason of the additional evidence and shall file any modifications, new findings, or decisions with the reviewing court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2022 · leading case: Crown Point Dev., Inc. v. City of Sun Valley, 156 P.3d 573 (Idaho 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Crown Point Dev., Inc. v. City of Sun Valley, 156 P.3d 573 (Idaho 2007). · cites it 16× “Idaho Code § 67-5276 allows additional evidence when prior to the hearing date, it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that there were good reasons for failure to present it in the agency hearing or that there were alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency.”
Petersen v. Franklin Cnty., 938 P.2d 1214 (Idaho 1997). · cites it 20× “§ 67-5275(3), as well as allow the record to be supplemented according to the terms of I.C. § 67-5276. Section 67-5276 specifies that the court may take additional proof on any “alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency,” I.”
Urrutia v. Blaine Cnty., 2 P.3d 738 (Idaho 2000). · cites it 6× “” I.C. § 67-5276 provides that the district court “may remand the matter to the agency with directions that the agency receive additional evidence and conduct additional fact finding,” when it is established that “there were good reasons for failure to present it in the…”
Wohrle v. Kootenai Cnty., 207 P.3d 998 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 10× “Idaho Code § 67-5276 states: (1) If, before the date set for hearing, application is made to the court for leave to present additional evidence and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is material, relates to the validity of the agency…”
In Re Application for Zoning Change, 96 P.3d 613 (Idaho 2004). · cites it 4× “Idaho Code § 67-5276 provides that the court can grant a request to present additional evidence if it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is material, relates to the validity of the agency action, and that .”
Spencer v. Kootenai Cnty., 180 P.3d 487 (Idaho 2008). · cites it 2× “Nowhere in his Motion to Augment does [Spencer] explain what prevented him from discovering the absence of the three documents at issue before August 2, 2005, much less, before this Court had reached a final decision in this case. The district court clearly acted in accordance…”
Fischer v. City of Ketchum, 109 P.3d 1091 (Idaho 2005). · cites it 2× “Fischer filed a motion to augment the record in the district court based upon I.C. § 67-5276 which was denied. The denial was based on the rule that the City Council can only consider Matters which were previously considered by the Commission as evidenced by the record, the…”
City of Ririe v. Gilgen, 515 P.3d 255 (Idaho 2022). · cites it 2× “We continue to adhere to this distinction today and note that the district court should have dismissed any attempts by the City to seek declaratory judgment below.”
Euclid Avenue Trust v. City of Boise, 193 P.3d 853 (Idaho 2008). · cites it 2× “The confusion resulting from a conglomerated proceeding is apparent here. While Euclid primarily styled this as a proceeding seeking judicial review, the matter was determined upon three orders granting summary judgment, hardly what one would expect in a review on the record.”
Cnty. Residents Against Pollution From Septage Sludge v. Bonner Cnty., 67 P.3d 64 (Idaho 2003). · cites it 2× “Idaho Code § 67-5276 provides: Additional evidence.”
Roberts v. Wyman, 23 P.3d 152 (Idaho Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “I.C. §§ 67-5276, 5277. The court must affirm the agency action unless the court finds that the agency's decision was in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; in excess of the agency's statutory authority; made upon unlawful procedure; not supported by substantial…”
Brower v. Bingham Cnty. Commissioners, 96 P.3d 613 (Idaho 2004). · cites it 4× “Idaho Code § 67-5276 provides that the court can grant a request to present additional evidence if it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is material, relates to the validity of the agency action, and that .”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Idaho Code § 67-5276(1)(a) — 1 case
Wohrle v. Kootenai Cnty., 207 P.3d 998 (Idaho 2009). “Idaho Code § 67-5276 states: (1) If, before the date set for hearing, application is made to the court for leave to present additional evidence and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is material, relates to the validity of the agency…”
— Idaho Code § 67-5276(2) — 2 cases
Crown Point Dev., Inc. v. City of Sun Valley, 156 P.3d 573 (Idaho 2007). “Idaho Code § 67-5276 allows additional evidence when prior to the hearing date, it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that there were good reasons for failure to present it in the agency hearing or that there were alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency.”
Petersen v. Franklin Cnty., 938 P.2d 1214 (Idaho 1997). “§ 67-5275(3), as well as allow the record to be supplemented according to the terms of I.C. § 67-5276. Section 67-5276 specifies that the court may take additional proof on any “alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency,” I.”
— Idaho Code § 67-5276(l)(a) — 1 case
Petersen v. Franklin Cnty., 938 P.2d 1214 (Idaho 1997). “§ 67-5275(3), as well as allow the record to be supplemented according to the terms of I.C. § 67-5276. Section 67-5276 specifies that the court may take additional proof on any “alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency,” I.”
— Idaho Code § 67-5276(l)(b) — 2 cases
Petersen v. Franklin Cnty., 938 P.2d 1214 (Idaho 1997). “§ 67-5275(3), as well as allow the record to be supplemented according to the terms of I.C. § 67-5276. Section 67-5276 specifies that the court may take additional proof on any “alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency,” I.”
Wohrle v. Kootenai Cnty., 207 P.3d 998 (Idaho 2009). “Idaho Code § 67-5276 states: (1) If, before the date set for hearing, application is made to the court for leave to present additional evidence and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is material, relates to the validity of the agency…”
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.