Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 7-704 (2026)

Facts prerequisite to taking. 

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Facts prerequisite to taking. 

Before property can be taken it must appear:

1.  That the use to which it is to be applied is a use authorized by law.
2.  That the taking is necessary to such use.
3.  If already appropriated to some public use, that the public use to which it is to be applied is a more necessary public use.
4.  In addition, for an electrical transmission line with a capacity in excess of two hundred thirty (230) KV (kilovolts), to be constructed over private real property actively devoted to agriculture, that a public meeting shall have been held following ten (10) days’ notice, as provided by section 60-109, Idaho Code, being published in a newspaper of general circulation in each county or counties in which the transmission line is proposed to be located with the last publication of the legal notice having occurred prior to the public meeting at which testimony from interested persons regarding the transmission line location is received.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1938–2013 · leading case: Erickson v. Amoth, 591 P.2d 1074 (Idaho 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Erickson v. Amoth, 591 P.2d 1074 (Idaho 1978). · cites it 4× “See I.C. §§ 7-704(1), 7-701(5); Idaho Const, art.”
McHan v. McHan, 84 P.2d 984 (Idaho 1938). · cites it 4× “The rule which should govern in the situation disclosed, clearly announced by statute, and followed in decisions of this court is that: *506 “The relief granted to the plaintiff, if there be no answer, can not exceed that which he shall have demanded in his complaint; ’ ’…”
Telford Lands LLC v. Cain, 303 P.3d 1237 (Idaho 2013). · cites it 2× “” I.C. § 7-704. An absolute necessity is not required; there only need be a reasonable necessity for the taking of the property.”
Indep. Sch. Dist. v. C. B. Lauch Constr. Co., 305 P.2d 1077 (Idaho 1957). · cites it 4× “After the usual proceedings on demurrers, the defendant (respondent) filed answer specifically denying the necessity for the taking.”
Cohen v. Larson, 867 P.2d 956 (Idaho 1993). · cites it 2× “Thus, it is incumbent upon the Cohen group to show not only that the use for which they claim the right to condemn Lindsay Road is a public use, but also that such use is necessary. A.”
Swanstrom v. Bell., 186 P.2d 876 (Idaho 1947). · cites it 2× “Appellant testified its value was $2068.00.”
Erickson v. Amoth, 739 P.2d 421 (Idaho Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Idaho Code § 7-701 provides that “[b]yroads, leading from highways to residences and farms” are public uses in behalf of which the condemnation power can be exercised by private plaintiffs.”
Curtis-Klure, PLLC v. Ada Cnty. High. Dist., 301 P.3d 624 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 2× “” ACHD could not have condemned all of the property that it purchased from the Curtises. Before property can be condemned, it must appear that the proposed use is authorized by law and that “the taking is necessary to such use.”
Idaho Code § 7-704(1): 1 case
Erickson v. Amoth, 591 P.2d 1074 (Idaho 1978). “See I.C. §§ 7-704(1), 7-701(5); Idaho Const, art.”
Idaho Code § 7-704(2): 1 case
Erickson v. Amoth, 591 P.2d 1074 (Idaho 1978). “See I.C. §§ 7-704(1), 7-701(5); Idaho Const, art.”
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.