Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 67-5279 (2026)

Scope of review — Type of relief.

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Scope of review — Type of relief.

(1) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.

(2) When the agency was not required by the provisions of this chapter or by other provisions of law to base its action exclusively on a record, the court shall affirm the agency action unless the court finds that the action was:

(a) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

(b) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;

(d) Arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

If the agency action is not affirmed, it shall be set aside, in whole or in part, and remanded for further proceedings as necessary.

(3) When the agency was required by the provisions of this chapter or by other provisions of law to issue an order, the court shall affirm the agency action unless the court finds that the agency’s findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:

(a) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

(b) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;

(d) Not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole; or

(e) Arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

If the agency action is not affirmed, it shall be set aside, in whole or in part, and remanded for further proceedings as necessary.

(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section, agency action shall be affirmed unless substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced.

(5) When interpreting the provisions of any state law, this chapter, or any rule, as defined in section 67-5201, Idaho Code, the court shall not defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law or rule and shall interpret its meaning and effect de novo. In an action brought by or against an agency, after applying all customary tools of interpretation, the court shall exercise any remaining doubt in favor of a reasonable interpretation that limits agency power and maximizes individual liberty.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 262 cases (47 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Taylor v. Canyon Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 210 P.3d 532 (Idaho 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Taylor v. Canyon Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 210 P.3d 532 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 40× “Regardless of whether the county board of commissioners' action meets the standard set forth in Idaho Code § 67-5279 (3), the district court must affirm the board's action "unless substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced.”

Access Behavioral Health v. IDHW, 517 P.3d 803 (Idaho 2022). · cites it 22× “Regardless of whether the Department’s action meets the standard set forth in Idaho Code § 67-5279 (3), the district court must affirm the Department’s action unless the “substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced.”

Hungate v. Bonner Cnty., 458 P.3d 966 (Idaho 2020). · cites it 30× “In response, the County did not dispute the Hungates’ contention that the Board had erred under Idaho Code section 67-5279, but the County maintained that the Board’s decision should be upheld because the Hungates could not show that any of their substantial rights were…”

Hawkins v. Bonneville Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 254 P.3d 1224 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 20× “I.C. § 67-5279; see also Evans v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 137 Idaho 428, 431 , 50 P.”

Hawkins v. Bonneville Cnty. Bd. of Com'rs, 254 P.3d 1224 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 20× “Idaho Code § 67-5279 governs judicial review by the district court.”

Marcia T. Turner, L.L.C. v. City of Twin Falls, 159 P.3d 840 (Idaho 2007). · cites it 16× “; Idaho Code § 67-5279 (1). Rather, this Court defers to the findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.”

Wood v. ITD, 532 P.3d 404 (Idaho 2023). · cites it 13× “” Wood also added language from the standard of review under Idaho’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Idaho Code section 67-5279, to describe the rulemaking by ISP as “arbitrary and capricious” and “made upon unlawful procedure.”

3g Ag LLC v. Idwr, 509 P.3d 1180 (Idaho 2022). · cites it 18× “” I.C. § 67-5279(1). However, we exercise de novo review over questions of law.”

Suits v. Idaho Bd. of Prof'l Discipline, 64 P.3d 323 (Idaho 2003). · cites it 10× “Suits was not entitled to a hearing before a panel of licensed physicians and that the record supported the Board’s conclusions.”

Marshall v. Idaho Dep't of Transp., 48 P.3d 666 (Idaho Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 8× “I.C. § 67-5279(1). This Court instead defers to the agency’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.”

Wheeler v. Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare, 207 P.3d 988 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 10× “Regardless of whether the Department’s action meets the standard set forth in Idaho Code § 67-5279 (3), the district court must affirm the Department’s action “unless substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced.”

Urrutia v. Blaine Cnty., 2 P.3d 738 (Idaho 2000). · cites it 10× “I.C. § 67-5279(1). The Court instead defers to the agency’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.”

Show all 262 citing cases →

— Idaho Code § 67-5279(1) — 113 cases

Access Behavioral Health v. IDHW, 517 P.3d 803 (Idaho 2022). “Regardless of whether the Department’s action meets the standard set forth in Idaho Code § 67-5279 (3), the district court must affirm the Department’s action unless the “substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced.”

Suits v. Idaho Bd. of Prof'l Discipline, 64 P.3d 323 (Idaho 2003). “Suits was not entitled to a hearing before a panel of licensed physicians and that the record supported the Board’s conclusions.”

Mahurin v. State, 99 P.3d 125 (Idaho Ct. App. 2004).

Whitted v. Canyon Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 44 P.3d 1173 (Idaho 2002).

Marshall v. Idaho Dep't of Transp., 48 P.3d 666 (Idaho Ct. App. 2002). “I.C. § 67-5279(1). This Court instead defers to the agency’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.”

— Idaho Code § 67-5279(1)(2) — 1 case

City of Ririe v. Gilgen, 515 P.3d 255 (Idaho 2022).

— Idaho Code § 67-5279(2) — 13 cases

Taylor v. Canyon Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 210 P.3d 532 (Idaho 2009). “Regardless of whether the county board of commissioners' action meets the standard set forth in Idaho Code § 67-5279 (3), the district court must affirm the board's action "unless substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced.”

Univ. of Utah Hosp. v. Ada Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 153 P.3d 1154 (Idaho 2007).

Purco Fleet Servs., Inc. v. Idaho State Dep't of Fin., 90 P.3d 346 (Idaho 2004).

Spencer v. Kootenai Cnty., 180 P.3d 487 (Idaho 2008).

Comer v. Cnty. of Twin Falls, 942 P.2d 557 (Idaho 1997).

— Idaho Code § 67-5279(2)(a) — 3 cases

Reese v. City of Blackfoot, 531 P.3d 480 (Idaho 2023).

Roy v. Idhw (Idaho 2024).

— Idaho Code § 67-5279(2)(c) — 1 case

Kuna Boxing Club, Inc. v. Idaho Lottery Comm'n, 233 P.3d 25 (Idaho 2009).

— Idaho Code § 67-5279(2)(d) — 1 case

Wood v. ITD, 532 P.3d 404 (Idaho 2023). “” Wood also added language from the standard of review under Idaho’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Idaho Code section 67-5279, to describe the rulemaking by ISP as “arbitrary and capricious” and “made upon unlawful procedure.”

— Idaho Code § 67-5279(3) — 198 cases

Hungate v. Bonner Cnty., 458 P.3d 966 (Idaho 2020). “In response, the County did not dispute the Hungates’ contention that the Board had erred under Idaho Code section 67-5279, but the County maintained that the Board’s decision should be upheld because the Hungates could not show that any of their substantial rights were…”

Urrutia v. Blaine Cnty., 2 P.3d 738 (Idaho 2000). “I.C. § 67-5279(1). The Court instead defers to the agency’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.”

Marshall v. Idaho Dep't of Transp., 48 P.3d 666 (Idaho Ct. App. 2002). “I.C. § 67-5279(1). This Court instead defers to the agency’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.”

Wheeler v. Idaho Transp. Dep't, 223 P.3d 761 (Idaho Ct. App. 2009).

— Idaho Code § 67-5279(3)(a) — 14 cases

3g Ag LLC v. Idwr, 509 P.3d 1180 (Idaho 2022). “” I.C. § 67-5279(1). However, we exercise de novo review over questions of law.”

Evans v. Bd. of Com'rs of Cassia Cnty., 50 P.3d 443 (Idaho 2002).

Payette River Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Bd. of Commissioners, 976 P.2d 477 (Idaho 1999).

Lamar Corp. v. City of Twin Falls, 981 P.2d 1146 (Idaho 1999).

Chisholm v. Twin Falls Cnty., 75 P.3d 185 (Idaho 2003).

— Idaho Code § 67-5279(3)(a)(e) — 1 case

Whitted v. Canyon Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 44 P.3d 1173 (Idaho 2002).

— Idaho Code § 67-5279(3)(b) — 4 cases

Levin v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 987 P.2d 1028 (Idaho 1999).

Skehan v. ISP (Idaho 2024).

Sullivan v. Blaine Cnty. (Idaho 2024).

St. Alphonsus Reg'l Med. v. Ada Cnty. (Idaho 2021).

— Idaho Code § 67-5279(3)(c) — 5 cases

Price v. Payette Cty. Bd. of Cty. Com'rs, 958 P.2d 583 (Idaho 1998).

Price v. Payette Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 958 P.2d 583 (Idaho 1998).

Erickson v. Idaho Bd. of Licensure of Prof'l Engineers & Prof'l Land Surveyors (Idaho 2019).

Sullivan v. Blaine Cnty. (Idaho 2024).

Vets. Park Neighborhood Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Boise (Idaho 2025).

— Idaho Code § 67-5279(3)(d) — 19 cases

Reisenauer v. State, Dep't of Transp., 188 P.3d 890 (Idaho 2008).

Price v. Payette Cty. Bd. of Cty. Com'rs, 958 P.2d 583 (Idaho 1998).

Mahurin v. State, 99 P.3d 125 (Idaho Ct. App. 2004).

Wohrle v. Kootenai Cnty., 207 P.3d 998 (Idaho 2009).

— Idaho Code § 67-5279(3)(d)(e) — 2 cases

Pearl v. Bpd of Idaho State Bd. of Med., 44 P.3d 1162 (Idaho 2002).

Paul v. Bd. of Prof'l Discipline, 11 P.3d 34 (Idaho 2000).

— Idaho Code § 67-5279(3)(e) — 12 cases

Lane Ranch P'ship v. City of Sun Valley, 175 P.3d 776 (Idaho 2007).

Bell v. Idaho Transp. Dep't, 262 P.3d 1030 (Idaho 2011).

Sagewillow, Inc. v. Idaho Dep't of Water Resources, 70 P.3d 669 (Idaho 2003).

— Idaho Code § 67-5279(4) — 109 cases

Hawkins v. Bonneville Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 254 P.3d 1224 (Idaho 2011). “I.C. § 67-5279; see also Evans v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 137 Idaho 428, 431 , 50 P.”

Hawkins v. Bonneville Cnty. Bd. of Com'rs, 254 P.3d 1224 (Idaho 2011). “Idaho Code § 67-5279 governs judicial review by the district court.”

Spencer v. Kootenai Cnty., 180 P.3d 487 (Idaho 2008).

Idaho Ground Water Appropriators v. Dept of Water Resources (42775) & City of Pocatello v. Rangen, Inc. (42836), 369 P.3d 897 (Idaho 2016).

— Idaho Code § 67-5279(5) — 3 cases

Latah Cnty. v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n (Idaho 2025).

First Presbyterian Church of Boise, Idaho, Inc. v. Ada Cnty. (Idaho 2025).

— Idaho Code § 67-5279(b) — 1 case

Skehan v. ISP (Idaho 2024).

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.