Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 67-5278 (2026)

Declaratory judgment on validity or applicability of rules. 

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

Declaratory judgment on validity or applicability of rules. 

(1) The validity or applicability of a rule may be determined in an action for declaratory judgment in the district court, if it is alleged that the rule, or its threatened application interferes with or impairs, or threatens to interfere with or impair, the legal rights or privileges of the petitioner.

(2)  The agency shall be made a party to the action.
(3)  A declaratory judgment may be rendered whether or not the petitioner has requested the agency to pass upon the validity or applicability of the rule in question.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · 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 12× “In its decision, the district court stated that pursuant to I.C. § 67-5278, the actual and “threatened application” of the CM Rules to American Falls’ Delivery Call would be considered in its analysis of the Rules’ constitutionality.”
Dea Haight v. Idaho Dept of Transp., 414 P.3d 205 (Idaho 2018). · cites it 9× “See I.C. § 67-5278 ("The validity ... of a rule may be determined in an action for declaratory judgment in the district court, if it is alleged that the rule, or its threatened application interferes with or impairs, or threatens to interfere with or impair, the legal rights or…”
Asarco Inc. v. State, 69 P.3d 139 (Idaho 2003). · cites it 2× “I.C. §§ 67-5278(1), (3). The Mining Companies sought a declaratory judgment from the state district court regarding the validity of the TMDL as a rule.”
John Doe v. State Sex Offender Registry, 352 P.3d 500 (Idaho 2015). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 67-5278. This is so regardless of the availability of agency remedies: (1) The validity or applicability of a rule may be determined in an action for declaratory judgment in the district court, if it is alleged that the rule, or its threatened application interferes with…”
Travis David Knox v. State, 404 P.3d 1280 (Idaho Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “The Registry issued a declaratory ruling in Knox’s case as envisioned by I.C. § 67-5278(3). The ruling was made after the Registry engaged in a comparison of the Oregon statutes upon which Knox was convicted and the sex offenses listed in I.”
Ricks v. State of Idaho Contractors Bd., 435 P.3d 1 (Idaho Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “7 We note another exception to the administrative exhaustion rule: "where an agency is charged with implementing a statute, declaratory judgment in the district court is permissible to determine the applicability of agency rules.”
Carelon Behavioral Health, Inc. v. State (Idaho 2025). · cites it 4× “§ 67-5278 Accordingly, Employers’ constitutional claims against the Council, while ultimately unsuccessful, did not circumvent a prohibition on judicial review and were properly brought as a declaratory judgment action. Importantly, the provision of the Idaho APA at issue in…”
Twin Falls Canal Co. v. Idaho Dep't of Water Resources, 905 P.2d 89 (Idaho 1995). · cites it 6× “In 1995, Twin Falls Canal Company and North Side Canal Company (the canal companies) filed a petition against IDWR in SRBA seeking declaratory relief pursuant to I.C. § 67-5278 (1995) declaring the rules invalid.”
Ricks v. State of Idaho Contractors Bd. (Idaho Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “7 We note another exception to the administrative exhaustion rule: “where an agency is charged with implementing a statute, declaratory judgment in the district court is permissible to determine the applicability of agency rules.”
Barry Searcy v. State Bd of Corr. (Idaho Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “§ 67-5270 through 5277; and declaratory judgment on validity of application of rules, I.C. § 67-5278, are not applicable to the Board.”
— Idaho Code § 67-5278(1) — 2 cases
Asarco Inc. v. State, 69 P.3d 139 (Idaho 2003). “I.C. §§ 67-5278(1), (3). The Mining Companies sought a declaratory judgment from the state district court regarding the validity of the TMDL as a rule.”
Twin Falls Canal Co. v. Idaho Dep't of Water Resources, 905 P.2d 89 (Idaho 1995). “In 1995, Twin Falls Canal Company and North Side Canal Company (the canal companies) filed a petition against IDWR in SRBA seeking declaratory relief pursuant to I.C. § 67-5278 (1995) declaring the rules invalid.”
— Idaho Code § 67-5278(2) — 1 case
Twin Falls Canal Co. v. Idaho Dep't of Water Resources, 905 P.2d 89 (Idaho 1995). “In 1995, Twin Falls Canal Company and North Side Canal Company (the canal companies) filed a petition against IDWR in SRBA seeking declaratory relief pursuant to I.C. § 67-5278 (1995) declaring the rules invalid.”
— Idaho Code § 67-5278(3) — 1 case
Travis David Knox v. State, 404 P.3d 1280 (Idaho Ct. App. 2017). “The Registry issued a declaratory ruling in Knox’s case as envisioned by I.C. § 67-5278(3). The ruling was made after the Registry engaged in a comparison of the Oregon statutes upon which Knox was convicted and the sex offenses listed in I.”
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.