Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 72-713 (2026)
Notice of hearings — Service.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Notice of hearings — Service.
(1) The commission shall give at least ten (10) days’ written notice of the time and place of hearing and of the issues to be heard.
(2) Parties represented by an attorney shall receive notice by email.
(3) Unrepresented parties shall receive notice by certified mail.
(4) Unrepresented parties may change their preferred method of service by providing written notice to the commission and a valid email address for service.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1977–2012 · leading case: Gomez v. Dura Mark, Inc., 272 P.3d 569 (Idaho 2012).
Gomez v. Dura Mark, Inc., 272 P.3d 569 (Idaho 2012). “Idaho Code section 72-713 states that the “commission shall give at least ten (10) days’ written notice of the time and place of hearing and of the issues to be heard.”
Mager v. Garrett Freightlines, Inc., 600 P.2d 773 (Idaho 1979). “2d 887 (1977), the notice here sufficiently complied with I.C. § 72-713 [2] and was fair notice of how the Commission intended to proceed.”
Swanson v. Kraft, Inc., 775 P.2d 629 (Idaho 1989). “) [I.C. § 72-713], `the Board, or the member of the Board to whom the matter has been assigned, shall make such inquiries and investigations as shall be deemed necessary.”
Mortimer v. Riviera Apts., 840 P.2d 383 (Idaho 1992). “It points out that I.C. § 72-713 requires the Commission to give at least ten days notice of the time, place, and "issues to be heard" at any hearing.”
White v. Idaho Forest Indus., 572 P.2d 887 (Idaho 1977). “) I.C. § 72-713 In this case, the notice contains no mention of the precise issue to be heard before the Commission, much less the Commission’s intent to raise the issue of failing to accept suitable work, which, to that date, had never arisen at all.”
Hernandez v. Phillips, 118 P.3d 111 (Idaho 2005). “I.C. § 72-713. In this ease, the referee’s decision stated that the issues to be decided at the hearing were: (1) whether, and to what extent, Hernandez was entitled to medical benefits, including cervical spine surgery; (2) whether, and to what extent, Hernandez was entitled to…”
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.