Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 72-732 (2026)

Disposition of appeal — Jurisdiction of Supreme Court. 

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

Disposition of appeal — Jurisdiction of Supreme Court. 

Upon hearing the court may affirm or set aside such order or award, or may set it aside only upon any of the following grounds:

(1)  The commission’s findings of fact are not based on any substantial competent evidence;
(2)  The commission has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its powers;
(3)  The findings of fact, order or award were procured by fraud;
(4)  The findings of fact do not as a matter of law support the order or award.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 177 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: Shriner v. Rausch, 108 P.3d 375 (Idaho 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Shriner v. Rausch, 108 P.3d 375 (Idaho 2005). · cites it 12× “Standard of Review The standard of review to be applied by this Court in reviewing an appeal from a decision of the Industrial Commission is set forth in Idaho Code § 72-732 . I.C. § 72-732 provides that: Upon hearing the court may affirm or set aside such order or award, or may…”
Graham v. Larry Donohoe Logging, 654 P.2d 1377 (Idaho 1982). · cites it 12× “I.C. § 72-732. We are not concerned with whether this *1379 Court would have reached the same conclusion, but rather, with whether the findings by the Commission are supported by substantial, competent evidence.”
Jenkins v. Agri-Lines Corp., 602 P.2d 47 (Idaho 1979). · cites it 12× “(e) His unemployment is not due to the fact that he left his employment voluntarily without good cause, or that he was discharged for misconduct in connection with his employment. This court's review in unemployment cases on appeal from the Industrial Commission is limited to…”
Olvera v. Del's Auto Body, 795 P.2d 862 (Idaho 1990). · cites it 12× “Olvera testified before the Commission that he was never advised that he was an independent contractor and that no worker's compensation benefits would be available.”
Bowman v. Twin Falls Const. Co., Inc., 581 P.2d 770 (Idaho 1978). · cites it 8× “§ 72-732(1), or are not supportable as a matter of law, Idaho Constitution, Article 5, section 9, does this Court have the authority and rightful power to reverse a decision of the Board. I believe neither standard justifies the Court's action today.”
Neufeld v. Browning Ferris Indus., 712 P.2d 600 (Idaho 1985). · cites it 8× “Before reviewing the evidence that the commission relied on in reaching its decision, we note the limited scope of our review.”
Horner v. Ponderosa Pine Logging, 695 P.2d 1250 (Idaho 1985). · cites it 8× “5, § 9; I.C. § 72-732. That determination is raised by claimant's second issue and is found in Part II of this opinion.”
Combs v. Kelly Logging, 769 P.2d 572 (Idaho 1989). · cites it 8× “5 § 9; I.C. § 72-732. However, we are not bound by conclusions of law drawn by the Commission; an order of the Commission must be set aside where the law is misapplied to the evidence.”
Bint v. Creative Forest Prods., 697 P.2d 818 (Idaho 1985). · cites it 8× “Rather, the real concern lies in the fact that an occupational *824 disease which disabled two workmen in less than sixty working days each was determined to be "non-acute" and therefore non-compensable under I.C. § 72-439. If the result in this case is wrong, the wrongness…”
Roberts v. Kit Mfg. Co., 866 P.2d 969 (Idaho 1993). · cites it 8× “V, § 9 and Idaho Code § 72-732 , the decisions made by the referees and the Commission are of critical importance to injured employees and their families.”
Mortimer v. Riviera Apts., 840 P.2d 383 (Idaho 1992). · cites it 8× “(One might query: Who does the attorney for the Riviera Apartments represent, if not the owners thereof? And if the Riviera Apartments do not exist as an independent legal entity, how does it have standing to pursue or resist an appellate proceeding?) Idaho Code § 72-732 (4)…”
Dallas Clark v. Shari's Mgmt. Corp, 314 P.3d 631 (Idaho 2013). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 72-732; Neihart v. Universal Joint Auto Parts, Inc.”
Show all 177 citing cases →
— Idaho Code § 72-732(1) — 45 cases
Bowman v. Twin Falls Const. Co., Inc., 581 P.2d 770 (Idaho 1978). “§ 72-732(1), or are not supportable as a matter of law, Idaho Constitution, Article 5, section 9, does this Court have the authority and rightful power to reverse a decision of the Board. I believe neither standard justifies the Court's action today.”
Graham v. Larry Donohoe Logging, 654 P.2d 1377 (Idaho 1982). “I.C. § 72-732. We are not concerned with whether this *1379 Court would have reached the same conclusion, but rather, with whether the findings by the Commission are supported by substantial, competent evidence.”
Paulson v. Idaho Forest Indus., Inc., 591 P.2d 143 (Idaho 1979).
Neufeld v. Browning Ferris Indus., 712 P.2d 600 (Idaho 1985). “Before reviewing the evidence that the commission relied on in reaching its decision, we note the limited scope of our review.”
Sykes v. C. P. Clare & Co., 605 P.2d 939 (Idaho 1980).
— Idaho Code § 72-732(2) — 4 cases
Curtis v. M.H. King Co., 128 P.3d 920 (Idaho 2005).
Kessler Ex Rel. Kessler v. Payette Cnty., 934 P.2d 28 (Idaho 1997).
Coronado v. City of Boise (Idaho 2025).
Coronado v. City of Boise (Idaho 2025).
— Idaho Code § 72-732(4) — 13 cases
O'Loughlin v. Circle a Constr., 739 P.2d 347 (Idaho 1987).
Aguilar v. State, 436 P.3d 1242 (Idaho 2019).
Hope v. Indus. Special Indem. Fund, 338 P.3d 546 (Idaho 2014).
Dinius v. Loving Care & More, Inc., 990 P.2d 738 (Idaho 1999).
Ford v. Bonner Cnty. Sch. Dist., 612 P.2d 557 (Idaho 1980).
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.