Ravenscroft Case Summary

Gordon Ravenscroft v. Boise County was a case in which the Supreme Court Of Idaho had to decide whether the Board's decision to terminate Ravenscroft is subject to the judicial review provisions of the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act. On May 11, 2011, Gordon Ravenscroft a county employee filed a Petition for Judicial Review against Boise County, its Board of Commissioners. Ravenscroft sought review of the Board's final decision for terminating his employment arguing that he had the right to an administrative appeal. Ravenscroft claimed he was denied his constitutional right to due process, and that the board acted outside the bounds of its authority to fire him. In response, the Board filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the district court was without jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a county personnel determination. …show more content…
The Board of Commissioners did not agree and appealed.

To make the decision the court looked at the Idaho Administrative Procedure, and the doctrine of stare decisis. Under Idaho Code § 31-1506 it states: 1) Unless otherwise provided by law, judicial review of any final act, order or proceeding of the board as provided in chapter 52, title 67, Idaho Code, for judicial review of actions. (2) Venue for judicial review of final board actions shall be in the district court of the county governed by the board. In May 2013, The Supreme Court of Idaho held the Board’s decision to terminate the employee was “an act, order or