⚖️ Elected Officials Training
Journal Tools › Elected Officials Training › Treasurers

Treasurers · Module 8

Module 8: Case Law, Attorney General Opinions and Rulings That Shape the Office

The court decisions, Attorney General opinions and agency guidance that bear on the county treasurer's work, sorted by topic, with what each one means for your office and what has changed since it was written.

Last Updated: October 13, 2026 | Reading Time: 23 minutes | Idaho Code citation

How to Find and Read Precedent

Authorities carry different weight. A holding of the Idaho Supreme Court on a question of Idaho law decides that question. An Attorney General opinion is advice. The Idaho Supreme Court says so itself: such opinions, "while not binding on this Court, those opinions are entitled to consideration."1

Idaho's appellate courts post opinions on the Supreme Court website, on separate pages for the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.2 Older Idaho Reports, through volume 162, sit as plain text at static.case.law, which is how I read most of the cases here. The Attorney General posts opinions and annual reports on its own site. Opinions from 1881 to 1984 are inside the annual reports, so you search a PDF for the number. The site also says official opinions are published on questions "of major importance and/or statewide interest," which means your question may have been answered only in a letter.3

Asking for an opinion

Section 67-1401(6) lists the officers the Attorney General advises in writing: the Legislature, the governor, the secretary of state, the state treasurer, the state controller and the superintendent. County officers are not on it. Subsection (7) has the Attorney General assist the prosecutor in a county.4 Your lawyer is the county prosecutor, who advises "the board of county commissioners, and other public officers of his county, when requested."5 Put the question in writing, attach the facts and the statutes, and say what you plan to do and by when. If the question is new or statewide, the prosecutor can take it up with the Attorney General. And subsection (17) is the Attorney General's door when a county officer is suspected of violating state criminal law.

Read a decision in this order: the date, the statute it applied, then what the court held. Much of what follows rests on statutes since changed. In 1996 the Legislature rewrote much of title 63, and section numbers in older cases may no longer exist.6 I flag each drift. The Board of Tax Appeals posts valuation appeals, and says its decisions carry no precedential effect.7 I found no Board of Tax Appeals decision or State Tax Commission ruling that sets a treasurer rule, and did not pad the module with one.

Liberty Perspective: Advice Is Evidence of Care

Idaho Code 31-2018 limits your personal liability for some losses and has the county stand behind you, except for negligence, gross negligence or intentional conduct.8 A written answer from the prosecutor shows you asked before you acted. It does not rewrite the statute, and a wrong answer will not rescue a wrong act. Ask early, ask in writing, keep the reply.

Notice and Due Process: Four U.S. Supreme Court Cases

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1950)

A New York bank settled a common trust fund's accounts and gave beneficiaries notice by newspaper publication. The test: notice must be "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." Publication was inadequate for beneficiaries whose addresses were known.9

For your office. The question is whether the notice was likely to reach the person. Publication is for people you cannot find.

Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1983)

An Indiana mortgagee got only publication before a tax sale. "When the mortgagee is identified in a mortgage that is publicly recorded, constructive notice by publication must be supplemented by notice mailed to the mortgagee's last known available address, or by personal service."10

For your office. Search the recorder's records for mortgages and deeds of trust and mail to the addresses in them.

Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2006)

Arkansas sent certified letters about a delinquency. They came back unclaimed. The State published and sold the house. "When mailed notice of a tax sale is returned unclaimed, a State must take additional reasonable steps to attempt to provide notice to the property owner before selling his property, if it is practicable to do so."11

For your office. A returned envelope is information. Act on it and write down what you did.

Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2023)

A Minnesota county sold a condominium for about $40,000 to collect roughly $15,000 in taxes, interest and penalties, and kept the roughly $25,000 left over. A unanimous Court held the owner plausibly alleged a Takings Clause violation: "The County had the power to sell Tyler's home to recover the unpaid property taxes. But it could not use the toehold of the tax debt to confiscate more property than was due."12

For your office. Surplus after a tax sale is not county money. Idaho already speaks to this in section 31-808(2): excess proceeds go to the parties in interest, then the record owner, with 60 days to claim.13 Module 3 has the mechanics. I found no Idaho appellate opinion applying Tyler, though my search was limited.14

Idaho Tax Deed Cases

Who must get notice

Sines v. Blaser, 100 Idaho 50 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1979)

Canyon County mailed notice only to the husband. The certified mail came back unclaimed and the county published. His wife, a co-owner of record, got no separate notice. Statutory notice is "mandatory," and lacking it is "a fatal defect even though the owner of the property otherwise had actual notice." The deed was void.15

For your office. Give notice to every record owner. One caution: section 63-1005(6) now deems actual notice sufficient, which softens the second half of Sines.16

Wylie v. Patton, 111 Idaho 61 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1986)

Bingham County mailed notice to the record owners and published. The day publication began, a lender recorded a trust deed. The tax deed issued weeks later. The treasurer "should have reexamined the public records prior to issuing the tax deed." The deed did not clear the lender's interest.17

For your office. Run the record search again right before you sign. Recording does not stop on your schedule.

Giacobbi v. Hall, 109 Idaho 293 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1985)

The Blaine County deed had no grantee address. The treasurer checked her files, motor vehicle records, the phone book and the post office. She did not call the title company named on the deed, though she sometimes did in other cases. The search was "neither reasonable nor diligent." Publication works only when the owner is not reasonably identifiable. The deed was reversed.18

For your office. If you call the title company in some files, call it in all of them, and log every lead you chased or dropped.

Strict versus substantial compliance

Jahnke v. County of Bingham, 115 Idaho 548 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1989)

The treasurer's compliance statement was unsigned, but the wife signed the return receipt. Substantial compliance was enough. The affidavit is "not a jurisdictional prerequisite" and "serves only as evidence that notice has been given."19

For your office. Do not lean on this one. Section 63-1005(1) now says the county is not entitled to a deed until notice is given and the affidavit of compliance is recorded.

Cluff v. Bonner County, 126 Idaho 950 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1995)

A 1940 tax deed left out a lot of about 42 acres. In 1990, after a quiet title suit began, the county issued a "corrected" deed with no notice. The corrected deed was "clearly not in compliance with the applicable statutes and therefore is void," with "no evidence of any notice given whatsoever." Title stayed with the record owner.20

For your office. A corrective deed is a new deed and needs a new process.

Chavez v. Canyon County, 152 Idaho 297 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2012)

The county put a flat $500 administrative fee on its notices. Section 63-1005(4)(d) requires an itemized statement, and a flat fee is not itemized. The notices were "deficient and void." Yet the owner also missed the 30-day petition for review under 63-1006(4), which is jurisdictional.21

For your office. Itemize every dollar and be ready to explain each line.

Floyd v. Board of Ada County Commissioners, 164 Idaho 659 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2019)

The owner sat in the Ada County jail. The treasurer mailed statutory notices to his vacant home and also wrote him at the jail about the delinquency and the March 19, 2015 deadline. That was actual notice under 63-1005(6). The court called the "paid" date stamp on returned mail "a troubling practice," though not a receipt.22

For your office. If you know a better address, use it. That extra letter saved the deed.

Hardy v. Phelps, 165 Idaho 137 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2019)

Boise County ordered litigation guarantees and sent certified and regular mail to two addresses. The notice printed the wrong hearing date and publication ended one day short of 14 days. The errors did not affect substantial rights, and the deeds stood. The county was denied attorney fees, the court reasoning it would not pay for a more precise job.23

For your office. Treat it as a rescue and keep it out of your standard.

Liberty Perspective: The Thin Margin

Hardy can read like permission to be sloppy. It describes what a court did after the sloppiness had happened. The county kept the deeds, paid its own lawyers and left with a court noting its mistakes.

The person on the other side of a tax deed has a property at stake. A second set of eyes on the dates costs one staff hour. The office that gets its dates right never appears in an opinion.

Practical Scenario: The Corrective Deed

Dale Merrick is the treasurer of Cedar Flat County, an invented county. A title company calls to say a 2009 tax deed described only two of the three parcels on the delinquent account. A staff member offers a quick fix: record a "corrected" deed and mail courtesy copies to the old owners.

Dale pulls the file and Cluff first. A corrected deed issued without notice was void there, and a treasurer could not truthfully recite compliances that never occurred. A courtesy copy is not the notice the statute describes. Dale writes the prosecutor with the facts and asks whether a new delinquency process is the only path, and signs nothing until the answer comes back.

Your Duty, the Board's Power and the Courthouse Door

The treasurer collects what the roll says. Whether the roll is right belongs to others. I found no Idaho appellate case that uses the word "ministerial" for this, but the division runs through the Code.24 The commissioners cancel taxes that should not be collected and order refunds of excess due to county fault, and they record those proceedings in their minutes.25

"shall assume no personal responsibility as to the legality of the orders"

Idaho Code § 63-1303(2) (describing the tax collector)

Read that clause with its neighbors. You collect on the board's order, you need the order in hand, and the question of its legality stays with the board.26

Franden v. Jonasson, 95 Idaho 792 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1973)

A suit was filed against the Ada County treasurer and assessor to apportion taxes. It was dismissed. Pursuing the commissioners' statutory remedy is "a condition precedent to judicial process," because the commissioners have "plenary power to cancel taxes which for any lawful reason should not be collected."27

For your office. When a taxpayer says a bill is wrong, point to the board. You cannot cancel a tax.

Childers v. Wolters, 115 Idaho 527 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1988)

The county treasurer sued a delinquent personal property taxpayer. The suit is limited to three years under 5-218(1) because "a county tax upon real or personal property is a 'liability created by statute.'"28

For your office. Collection suits have a clock. The collection statute the court read, 63-1204, is no longer in the Code, so confirm the current remedy before filing.

Weldon v. Bonner County Tax Coalition, 124 Idaho 31 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1993)

The treasurer, auditor, assessor and sheriff joined the county in suing to stop a referendum and initiative aimed at the county budget. They had standing and were not in privity with the county: "The Elected Officials are not under the control or direction of Bonner County, acting through its Board of County Commissioners. Instead, the Elected Officials, acting in their respective official capacities, represent the people of Bonner County."29

For your office. You can hold a different legal position than your board. Talk to the prosecutor about conflicts before you file anything on your own.

Liberty Perspective: The Phone Call Is Not a Resolution

The board changes a tax bill by a recorded act. A commissioner who calls to "take care of" a penalty for a neighbor has made a request, and requests do not appear in the minutes. Section 63-1302(3) puts the proceedings in the record, and 63-1304 lets the board authorize adjustments of late charges, interest and fees by resolution, up to a limit.25 When the order is in the minutes you can act. When it is a phone call, you can say where to send it. That protects the commissioner too.

Refunds, Interest and Abatement

Interest on delinquent property tax runs at one percent per month from January 1 after the lien year, and not on collection costs.30

County of Ada v. Red Steer Drive-Ins of Nevada, Inc., 101 Idaho 94 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1980)

The Board of Tax Appeals found residential and farm improvements valued at 73 percent while commercial was valued at 100 percent, and reduced Red Steer's valuation by 27 percent. The county must pay interest on the refund, overruling an older decision to that extent. Attorney fees were denied.31

For your office. Section 63-1305(2) now says a "refund" includes "interest due on the refund." Budget for it when a court or the Board of Tax Appeals orders money back.

A July 31, 1990 Attorney General guideline to the Ada and Canyon County treasurers said partial deposits under an older statute "accumulate" and did not change penalty and interest.32 That does not match current 63-903(3), which charges interest and late charges on the unpaid first half, or 63-1001, which treats a payment on a delinquency as partial redemption. If you inherit a file citing it, call the prosecutor first.

Practical Scenario: The Friendly Waiver

Priya Anand is the treasurer of Larch County, an invented county. A commissioner calls to say a neighbor paid her second-half bill nine days late and "shouldn't be charged for that." The commissioner would like the interest taken off.

Priya cannot waive interest on her own authority. She tells the commissioner that a recorded board action is the way, within the limit the statute sets under 63-1304, and offers to put the file on the next agenda. She notes the call. If the board acts, she posts the adjustment against the resolution number. If it does not, the bill stands.

Deposits and Investments

The Public Depository Law, chapter 1 of title 57, tells you where county money may sit and how idle funds may be invested with the supervising board's approval. It protects you too: deposit as the chapter requires and there is no personal or bond liability for a bank's insolvency. It makes profiting from loaning or using public money a felony.33 Section 31-2119 bars loans "except as provided by law," and in 2023 section 31-2127 opened investment through the state treasurer by joint exercise of powers agreement.34 Module 4 has the mechanics.

Oversmith v. Highway District No. Two, 37 Idaho 752 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1923)

Latah County highway commissioners resolved to place $7,500 a year for ten years with an out-of-state syndicate in return for $100,000 later. The 1921 Public Depository Law "is complete within itself and is a limitation upon the power of the supervising board" and "must be strictly complied with." Investment statutes "must be strictly followed, even though the interest so earned is less than might be earned by speculative investments."35

For your office. A better return is not a legal reason. If the investment is not authorized, no yield justifies it.

Bannock County v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 53 Idaho 159 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1933)

The county treasurer, public administrator, tax collector and sheriff had money on general deposit when the bank failed. They claimed a trust preference, and the surety paid $15,000. The Public Depository Law is constitutional. The complaint was dismissed and the judgment affirmed.36

For your office. Money deposited under the statute and bond is protected by them. Money parked outside them is your problem.

Attorney General opinions on deposits

Opinion 77-40 (June 17, 1977). A county clerk asked about direct electronic deposit of federal revenue sharing funds. The opinion said section 31-2103 would prohibit it.37 Outdated: a 1990 amendment permits electronic transfers when followed by documentation.

Opinion 82-4 (March 19, 1982). The Director of the Department of Finance asked about joint investments. They were allowed on strict terms, but a depositing unit's investment power "cannot be delegated or transferred to the state treasurer." The opinion leaned on Oversmith and said a fix should come "with remedial legislation."38 Section 31-2127 is that legislation, so read the opinion for its reasoning and the statute for the rule.

Liberty Perspective: When the Rule Changes, the Opinion Does Not

Opinion 82-4 was careful for 1982. Today it points away from a path the Legislature opened in 2023. A printed copy in your drawer does not update itself. Date every opinion in your file and write the current statute next to it.

Practical Scenario: The Higher Yield

Tomas Reyes, treasurer of Spruce County (an invented county), gets a call from an out-of-state broker offering a pooled fund that has beaten the county's returns for three years. Tomas likes the numbers.

Tomas asks one question first: does the Code authorize this investment for county idle funds, with the supervising board's approval? Oversmith says to check, even when the yield is lower. He asks for the offering in writing, sends it to the prosecutor and puts the matter on the next board agenda. If the fund is not authorized, the pitch ends there. If the board wants a pooled option, Tomas can look at 31-2127 and the State Treasurer's pool.

Bond and Personal Liability

You carry separate bonds for treasurer, tax collector and public administrator.39 Misuse of public money is a crime under 18-5701 to 18-5703. The felony reaches officers charged with receiving or keeping public money, with termination, restitution and disqualification.40 The civil limit on statutory liabilities is three years, with a later start for surety bond claims once the loss is discovered.41

County of Fremont v. Salisbury, 48 Idaho 465 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1929)

The treasurer was also tax collector. A bank failed holding both treasurer funds and delinquent taxes in a tax collector account. A paper transfer between accounts had no auditor's certificate and no entries. The tax collector holds a separate office and bond: "This bond alone is liable." The transfer was invalid. The treasurer's bond was not liable for $6,832.08, and the judgment fell to $3,453.53 plus interest.42

For your office. Keep tax collection money in its own account with its own entries. The line between your offices protects both bonds, and you, when you can show it on paper.

State v. Bell, 84 Idaho 153 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1962)

A justice of the peace was convicted under 18-5701 of failing to transfer money to the county treasurer. "Public moneys" includes all moneys received in an official capacity. "Wilfully" means "knowingly" or "intentionally" and "does not encompass inadvertence or mistake." The conviction was affirmed.43

For your office. Honest error is a defense. Records that make honest error provable are the proof.

Two Attorney General guidelines from 1988 round this out. One told a clerk of the district court that drug forfeiture money is public money and goes to the county treasurer, and the sheriff may not keep a separate account.44 The other said that while a bankruptcy stay is pending a county may not make a delinquency entry or issue a tax deed, and an entry made against the stay is void.45 Its section numbers are obsolete. The federal stay is not. Check the bankruptcy docket before you process a delinquent account.

Liberty Perspective: Strict Accountability Is in the Constitution

Article XVIII, section 6 requires "strict accountability" of county officers for the public moneys paid to them.46 The cases apply that sentence to bank failures and account transfers. Relief for disaster or theft by outsiders is a statute, and its indemnity has exceptions. Assume the standard is the Constitution's and the relief is whatever the Code gives in the particular case.

Public Administrator Funds

As ex officio public administrator you handle estates of people who die with no one else to act. Section 14-101 requires a bond with two sureties. Section 14-102(1) reaches estates of persons who "upon their death, reside within his county" where no heirs are known, the estate is wasting, a court orders it, or the state is the heir. Section 14-117 requires probate to start within three months and bars personal fees, and 14-118 has the prosecutor represent you without charge.47 Module 6 is the full treatment.

Kiernan v. Cleland, 47 Idaho 200 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1929)

The Kootenai County treasurer, also public administrator, held an estate from 1921 to 1928. The bank paid $1,367.24 in interest on the combined deposit. The interest belonged to the heir, not the county. "Administrators or trustees generally may not profit by their trust other than to receive the fees regularly provided." Estate funds are public moneys only "for the purpose of protection."48

For your office. Estate money earns interest for the estate. Keep it separate and credit it to the estate.

Denzo v. Murray, 58 Idaho 60 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1937)

The decedent lived in Idaho County and died in Nez Perce County. The public administrator "should be appointed where there are no known heirs, creditors, or claimants," so the state gets the largest estate at the least expense. The court looked to the county of death under the statute of the time.49

For your office. Do not rely on the county-of-death rule. Section 14-102(1) now speaks of residence, since 1996.

Liberty Perspective: Estate Money Is Not County Money

Kiernan states a rule of plain honesty: a trustee does not profit from the trust. The county treasury is full of public funds, and an estate sitting in the same bank is not one of them. One estate, one ledger, one interest allocation, nothing posted to the general fund.

Related Organizations and Where to Get Help

Each URL returned a live page on October 13, 2026, except the Law Library noted below.50

Practice Points for the Officeholder

Before you sign a tax deed affidavit

  • Run a fresh recorder search the week you sign. (Wylie)
  • Name every record owner and recorded party, and mail to the addresses in the recorded documents. (Sines, Mennonite)
  • Itemize every cost on the notice. No flat fees. (Chavez)
  • Follow up on returned mail with another step, and write down each one. (Jones v. Flowers, Floyd)
  • Have a second person check every date. The affidavit is recorded at least five working days before the deed. (63-1005)
  • No corrective deed without a new process. (Cluff)
  • Check the bankruptcy docket. (11 U.S.C. 362(a))
  • Watch the 30-day review clock and the 14-month redemption and auction clocks. (63-1006, 63-1007, 31-808)

Before you adjust, refund or advance

  • Get a recorded board order. A phone call is not one. (63-1302(3), 63-1304)
  • Send valuation complaints to the board of equalization first. (Franden)
  • Budget interest on court-ordered refunds. (63-1305, Red Steer)
  • Ask the prosecutor in writing before any advance of county funds under 31-2119.

Deposits, bonds and estates

  • Receive money on the auditor's certificate and keep tax collector money in its own account. (Salisbury)
  • Invest only what the Code authorizes and the board approves in the minutes. (Oversmith)
  • Keep estate money and its interest apart from county funds. (Kiernan)
  • Keep an authorities file: each opinion you relied on, its date and the current section text.

Questions to expect, mistakes and who to call

  • "Can you waive this penalty?" Point to the board and 63-1304. "Where is the sale surplus?" See 31-808(2) and Tyler.
  • Common mistakes: relying on an old opinion without checking the current statute, and treating Hardy as a standard instead of a rescue.
  • Call the county prosecutor first, in writing. Then IACT or ICRMP. The Attorney General directly only for a suspected state criminal violation by a county officer, under 67-1401(17).

Pictures, Numbers and Infographics

Four U.S. Supreme Court cases between 1950 and 2023 set the notice and surplus rules an Idaho tax deed must meet. The dollar amounts in two of them show how a modest tax debt can cost an owner far more than it was worth.

The U.S. Supreme Court room in the Capitol, in an 1894 print
The Supreme Court room in the U.S. Capitol, in an 1894 print. The Court sat in the Capitol until 1935, so all four decisions charted here came from its present building across the street. Credit: Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

By the numbers

Four decisions behind every tax deed notice 1950: Mullane Notice must be reasonably calculated to reach the people affected 1983: Mennonite Board of Missions A mortgagee in a recorded mortgage gets mailed or personal notice 2006: Jones v. Flowers Certified mail comes back unclaimed: take more reasonable steps 2023: Tyler v. Hennepin County Keeping sale proceeds above the tax debt is a taking
The holdings in brief. Source: Mennonite, 1983; Jones v. Flowers, 2006; Tyler, 2023.
Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams (1983) Mortgage $14,000 Still owed, 1979 $8,237.19 Tax sale price $1,167.75
Bar lengths are proportional to dollars. Source: Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (1983).

Sources & Further Reading

Primary Sources

  • Idaho Const. art. XVIII, § 6
  • Idaho Code §§ 5-218, 14-101, 14-102, 14-117, 14-118, 18-5701 to 18-5703, 31-808, 31-2015, 31-2018, 31-2103, 31-2119, 31-2127, 31-2604, 57-127, 57-137 to 57-140, 63-903, 63-1001, 63-1002, 63-1005 to 63-1007, 63-1302 to 63-1305, 67-1401
  • Mullane, 339 U.S. 306 (1950); Mennonite, 462 U.S. 791 (1983); Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006); Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023)
  • Idaho cases: Sines, Wylie, Giacobbi, Jahnke, Cluff, Chavez, Floyd, Hardy, Franden, Childers, Weldon, Red Steer, Oversmith, Bannock County, Salisbury, Bell, Kiernan, Denzo

Agency Guidance

Related Training Modules

Knowledge Check

Check your understanding. No scores are saved.

1. Your county prosecutor hands you an Attorney General opinion that fits your question. How much weight does it carry?

2. A lender recorded a trust deed on the day your publication began. Your tax deed issues several weeks later. What does Wylie v. Patton say you should have done?

3. Under Idaho Code 63-1303(2), when the board orders a cancellation or refund, who bears responsibility for the legality of the order?

4. A broker offers a pooled fund with a higher yield than the county's authorized investments. What does Oversmith teach?

5. A bank fails holding both treasurer funds and money in the tax collector account. Under County of Fremont v. Salisbury (1929), which bond answers for the tax collector money?

Reference Materials

Use your browser's print function (Ctrl+P / Cmd+P) to save this page as a PDF for offline reference.

Footnotes

  1. Ehco Ranch, Inc. v. State, 107 Idaho 808, 811 (1984) (Idaho Reports vol. 107): "While not binding on this Court, those opinions are entitled to consideration." Repeated in State v. Bennett, 142 Idaho 166 (2005).
  2. Idaho Supreme Court, Supreme Court and Court of Appeals opinions.
  3. Idaho Attorney General, opinions and annual reports.
  4. Idaho Code § 67-1401(6), (7) and (17).
  5. Idaho Code § 31-2604(3): the prosecuting attorney advises "the board of county commissioners, and other public officers of his county, when requested."
  6. 1996 Session Laws, ch. 98. For example, old 63-1204 and 63-1102A returned no text from the current Code.
  7. Idaho Board of Tax Appeals, recent decisions: "No precedential effect attaches to decisions of the BTA" and they should not be cited or relied upon as controlling legal authority. The page posts ad valorem decisions only.
  8. Idaho Code § 31-2018 (1988): the county indemnifies except for negligence, gross negligence or intentional conduct.
  9. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950) (text).
  10. Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (June 22, 1983) (text).
  11. Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (Apr. 26, 2006) (text). Hardy v. Phelps, 165 Idaho 137 (2019), cites 547 U.S. at 234-35 for regular mail as an additional step.
  12. Tyler v. Hennepin County, No. 22-166 (May 25, 2023) (slip opinion). The slip opinion carries "598 U. S. ___"; I confirmed 598 U.S. 631 only from a secondary source.
  13. Idaho Code § 31-808(1) and (2)(b) to (d): auction within 14 months of the deed; excess to parties in interest, then the record owner; board notice within 30 days; 60 days to claim.
  14. I searched Idaho Reports through volume 162 and the 2019 Floyd and Hardy opinions for a citation to Tyler and found none. Check the Supreme Court opinion pages for anything newer.
  15. Sines v. Blaser, 100 Idaho 50, 592 P.2d 1367 (1979) (vol. 100).
  16. Idaho Code § 63-1005(1), (4)(d), (6), (8) and (9).
  17. Wylie v. Patton, 111 Idaho 61, 720 P.2d 649 (Ct. App. 1986) (vol. 111).
  18. Giacobbi v. Hall, 109 Idaho 293, 707 P.2d 404 (1985) (vol. 109).
  19. Jahnke v. County of Bingham, 115 Idaho 548, 768 P.2d 811 (Ct. App. 1989) (vol. 115). Today's rule on current payments is in Idaho Code § 63-903(7) and Idaho Code § 63-1002(3).
  20. Cluff v. Bonner County, 126 Idaho 950, 895 P.2d 551 (1995) (vol. 126). Redemption is now 14 months after the deed under Idaho Code § 63-1007(2).
  21. Chavez v. Canyon County, 152 Idaho 297, 271 P.3d 695 (2012) (vol. 152). The 30-day review petition is in Idaho Code § 63-1006(4).
  22. Floyd v. Board of Ada County Commissioners, 164 Idaho 659, 434 P.3d 1265 (2019), read from the P.3d volume 434 text.
  23. Hardy v. Phelps, 165 Idaho 137, 443 P.3d 151 (2019), read from the P.3d volume 443 text.
  24. The rule comes from the statutes cited in the previous note and from Franden.
  25. Idaho Code § 63-1302(1) and (3), Idaho Code § 63-1304 and Idaho Code § 63-1305.
  26. Idaho Code § 63-1303(2).
  27. Franden v. Jonasson, 95 Idaho 792, 520 P.2d 247 (1973) (vol. 95). The cancellation section it applied, then 63-2202, is now 63-1302.
  28. Childers v. Wolters, 115 Idaho 527, 768 P.2d 790 (Ct. App. 1988) (vol. 115). The limitation rests on Idaho Code § 5-218(1).
  29. Weldon v. Bonner County Tax Coalition, 124 Idaho 31, 855 P.2d 868 (1993) (vol. 124).
  30. Idaho Code § 63-1001 (interest of 1% per month from January 1 after the lien year, not on collection costs) and Idaho Code § 63-903(3).
  31. County of Ada v. Red Steer Drive-Ins of Nevada, Inc., 101 Idaho 94, 609 P.2d 161 (1980) (vol. 101).
  32. Idaho Attorney General, informal guideline of July 31, 1990, to the Ada and Canyon County treasurers (Deputy Attorney General David G. High), in the 1990 annual report. I did not confirm the page number.
  33. Idaho Code § 57-127, Idaho Code § 57-137 and Idaho Code § 57-139.
  34. Idaho Code § 31-2127 (added 2023) and Idaho Code § 31-2119.
  35. Oversmith v. Highway District No. Two, 37 Idaho 752, 218 P. 361 (1923) (vol. 37).
  36. Bannock County v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 53 Idaho 159, 22 P.2d 674 (1933) (vol. 53).
  37. Idaho Attorney General Opinion No. 77-40 (June 17, 1977), in the 1977 annual report. It rested on the version of Idaho Code § 31-2103 before the 1990 amendment (1990 Session Laws, ch. 76).
  38. Idaho Attorney General Opinion No. 82-4 (March 19, 1982), in the 1982 annual report.
  39. Idaho Code § 31-2015(2), (7) and (10); Idaho Code § 14-101.
  40. Idaho Code § 18-5701 to Idaho Code § 18-5703.
  41. Idaho Code § 5-218(1).
  42. County of Fremont v. Salisbury, 48 Idaho 465, 285 P. 459 (1929) (vol. 48).
  43. State v. Bell, 84 Idaho 153, 370 P.2d 508 (1962) (vol. 84).
  44. Idaho Attorney General, informal guideline of November 2, 1988 (Daniel G. Chadwick) to a clerk of the district court, in the 1988 annual report.
  45. Idaho Attorney General, informal guideline of April 20, 1988 (Deputy Attorney General John W. Ruebelmann) to a county board of commissioners and prosecutor, in the 1988 annual report. Its section numbers (old 63-1109 and 63-1114) are obsolete. See also 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).
  46. Idaho Const. art. XVIII, § 6 (text).
  47. Idaho Code § 14-101, Idaho Code § 14-102, Idaho Code § 14-117 and Idaho Code § 14-118.
  48. Kiernan v. Cleland, 47 Idaho 200, 273 P. 938 (1929) (vol. 47).
  49. Denzo v. Murray, 58 Idaho 60, 70 P.2d 380 (1937) (vol. 58).
  50. The IAC pages returned a page only to a browser-style request.