Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 67-5277 (2026)

Judicial review of issues of fact. 

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

Judicial review of issues of fact. 

Judicial review shall be conducted by the court without a jury. Unless otherwise provided by statute, judicial review of disputed issues of fact must be confined to the agency record for judicial review as defined in this chapter, supplemented by additional evidence taken pursuant to section 67-5276, Idaho Code.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2021 · 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 6× “I.C. § 67-5277 (judicial review of disputed issues of fact must be confined to the agency record for judicial review); Lindstrom v.”
Urrutia v. Blaine Cnty., 2 P.3d 738 (Idaho 2000). · cites it 4× “Judicial review of factual issues under IDAPA is governed by I.C. § 67-5277. Section 67-5277 states that “judicial review of disputed issues of fact must be confined to the agency record for judicial review as defined in this chapter, supplemented by additional evidence taken…”
Crown Point Dev., Inc. v. City of Sun Valley, 156 P.3d 573 (Idaho 2007). · cites it 4× “” I.C. § 67-5277. 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…”
Petersen v. Franklin Cnty., 938 P.2d 1214 (Idaho 1997). · cites it 4× “That section specifies that “judicial review of disputed issues of fact must be confined to the agency record for judicial review as defined in this chapter, supplemented by additional evidence taken pursuant to section 67-5276, Idaho Code.”
Neighbors for a Healthy Gold Fork v. Valley Cnty., 176 P.3d 126 (Idaho 2007). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 67-5277. This Court will review those issues raised below, but the Court declines to address issues raised for the first time on appeal.”
Gibson v. Ada Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 72 P.3d 845 (Idaho 2003). · cites it 2× “The district court addressed the matter under the standard of review set forth in the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act (IAPA), I.C. §§ 67-5277 and -5279, and affirmed the hearing officer’s decision.”
Idaho Power Co. v. Idaho Dep't of Water Resources, 255 P.3d 1152 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 67-5277; Chisholm, 142 Idaho at 162, 125 P.”
Eacret v. Bonner Cnty., 86 P.3d 494 (Idaho 2004). · cites it 2× “seek judicial review as provided by chapter 52, title 67, Idaho Code.” I.C. § 67-6521(l)(d).”
Gibson v. Ada Cnty., 133 P.3d 1211 (Idaho 2006). · cites it 2× “An Ada County personnel hearing officer (hearing officer) heard the matter on January 25 and 26, 2000, and on February 15, 2000, affirmed Killeen’s decision to terminate Gibson. Gibson filed a petition for judicial review with the district court pursuant to Ada County Code §…”
Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Ada Cnty., 192 P.3d 1050 (Idaho 2008). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 67-5277; Shobe v. Ada County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 130 Idaho 580, 583 , 944 P.”
Thompson Creek Mining Co. v. Idaho Dep't of Water Resources, 220 P.3d 318 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 67-5277; Dovel v. Dobson, 122 Idaho 59, 61 , 831 P.”
Euclid Avenue Trust v. City of Boise, 193 P.3d 853 (Idaho 2008). · cites it 2× “” I.C. § 67-5277. IDAPA provides the scope of review and the type of relief available in I.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
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.