Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 8-507 (2026)

applicability.

✓ current as of May 2026

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

applicability.

To the extent that the provisions of chapter 7, title 11, Idaho Code, are not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter, such provisions shall apply to the attachment process.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1972–2020 · leading case: Chavez v. Barrus, 192 P.3d 1036 (Idaho 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Chavez v. Barrus, 192 P.3d 1036 (Idaho 2008). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 8-507 et seq.; I.C. § 11-301. Because we affirm the district court in its determination that the decree of divorce divested Chavez of her real property interest in the home, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that the sheriff followed the proper procedures in…”

In Re Rodriguez, 336 B.R. 462 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2005). · cites it 2× “See Idaho Code § 8-507 et seq. 35 . Idaho law provides for "continuing garnishments” effective on a debtor's wages until released or satisfied.”

Chaloux v. Killeen, 886 F.2d 247 (9th Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “See Idaho Code §§ 8-507 to 8-523, 11-101 to 11-207 (1979).”

Whitehead v. Van Leuven, 347 F. Supp. 505 (D. Idaho 1972). “Such order may be modified or vacated by the judge granting the same, or the court in which the action is brought, at any time, upon such terms as may be just.”

Chaloux v. Killeen, 873 F.2d 1274 (9th Cir. 1989). “In spite of the nondiscretionary language of the garnishment statutes, appellants contend the sheriffs exercised policymak-ing authority.”

Puckett v. Bergmann (Idaho 2020). · cites it 2× “See I.C. § 8-507 (repealed 2017). Here, Puckett sent a letter of instructions to the sheriff specifying that the “property interest to be attached” was “Sharon K.”

Bianco v. Erkins, 84 F. App'x 945 (9th Cir. 2003). “The Intervenors contend that their due process rights were violated because Bianco did not adhere to the notice requirements set forth in Idaho Code §§ 8-507 and 8-507A. The Intervenors seek a reversal of the district court’s ruling and ask us to “declare the levy and seizure of…”

— Idaho Code § 8-507(A) — 1 case

Chavez v. Barrus, 192 P.3d 1036 (Idaho 2008). “I.C. § 8-507 et seq.; I.C. § 11-301. Because we affirm the district court in its determination that the decree of divorce divested Chavez of her real property interest in the home, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that the sheriff followed the proper procedures in…”

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.