Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 72-708 (2026)
Process and procedure.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Process and procedure.
Process and procedure under this law shall be as summary and simple as reasonably may be and as far as possible in accordance with the rules of equity.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: Hagler v. Micron Tech., Inc., 798 P.2d 55 (Idaho 1990).
Hagler v. Micron Tech., Inc., 798 P.2d 55 (Idaho 1990). “While the Commission should have examined the treatise, its failure to do so was harmless error. Strict adherence to the rules of evidence is not required in Industrial Commission proceedings and admission of evidence in such proceedings is more relaxed.”
Excell Constr., Inc. v. State, 116 P.3d 18 (Idaho 2005). “Idaho Code § 72-708 provides that practice and procedure under the worker’s compensation law be simple and “as far as possible in accord with the rules of equity.”
Mortimer v. Riviera Apts., 840 P.2d 383 (Idaho 1992). “Idaho Code § 72-708 requires otherwise. This is especially so because it appears that in the proceedings below the interests of the owners were fully and competently represented by the attorney representing the Riviera Apartments.”
Mapusaga v. Red Lion Riverside Inn, 748 P.2d 1372 (Idaho 1987). “The commission adopted this rating in its final opinion. At no time was the ISIF allowed to challenge this finding either through cross-examination or through an opportunity to introduce any conflicting evidence of the new impairment rating.”
Seamans v. Maaco Auto Painting & Bodyworks, 918 P.2d 1192 (Idaho 1996). “The Commission further found that because the evidence was in equipoise, Maaco had thus failed to meet its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence, as required by I.C. § 72-708, that Seamans intentionally fell from Maaco's roof.”
Hattenburg v. Blanks, 567 P.2d 829 (Idaho 1977). “Appellant contends that by filing his “Application for Hearing” within one year of the accident, he substantially complied with the requirement in I.”
Morris v. Hap Taylor & Sons, Inc., 301 P.3d 639 (Idaho 2013). “I.C. § 72-708 provides: “Process and procedure under [the workers’ compensation] law shall be as summary and simple as reasonably may be and as far as possible in accordance with the rules of equity.”
Matter of Wilson, 911 P.2d 754 (Idaho 1996). “For the same reasons, we also conclude that the Judicial Rule's failure to accord the SIF with a full hearing is not inconsistent with the rules of equity as imposed upon the Commission by I.C. § 72-708 nor is it inconsistent with I.”
John Doe v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, 367 P.3d 136 (Idaho 2016). “3d 18, 26 (2005) (provision in Idaho Code section 72-708 that the practice and procedure under the worker’s compensation law be simple and “as far as possible in accord with the rules of equity” did not authorize the awarding of attorney fees); Fournier v.”
Hite v. Kulhenak Bldg. Contractor, 524 P.2d 531 (Idaho 1974). “81, § 48) solely had reference to procedural aspects of the workmen's compensation law.”
Walters v. Blincoe's Magic Valley Packing Co., 787 P.2d 225 (Idaho 1990). “Of course, the Court does have to wrestle with the legislature's statutory scheme, and more often than not without any insight as to the legislative thinking or the lobbying pressures to which it has been subjected. All of this is understandable.”
Monroe v. Chapman, 668 P.2d 1000 (Idaho 1983). “” I.C. § 72-708. The Industrial Commission has been granted the “authority to promulgate and adopt reasonable rules and regulations for effecting the purposes of this act.”
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.