Idaho summary judgment: two filing tests, then 28-14-7 to the hearing
Idaho procedure · Last verified August 17, 2026
Idaho splits its timing into two separate questions. First, may you file the motion at all — a test tied to service and to the trial date. Second, once you have a hearing, when must each paper be served — a countdown from the hearing. Both have to be satisfied, and they are in different subdivisions.
First question: may you file?
Rule 56(b)(1) contains both halves:
The motion may be filed any time after the expiration of 21 days from the service of process upon the adverse party or that party's appearance in the action or after service of a motion for summary judgment by the adverse party, However, a motion for summary judgment must be filed at least 90 days before the trial date, or filed within 7 days from the date of the order setting the case for trial, whichever is later, unless otherwise ordered by the court.
Three gates, and the last one is the unusual part:
- The earliest you may file is 21 days after service of process on the adverse party, or that party's appearance — or immediately, if the adverse party has served a summary-judgment motion of its own.
- The latest is 90 days before trial.
- But if the order setting the case for trial comes late, you get 7 days from that order, "whichever is later."
That last clause is a rescue, not a restriction. Where a court sets trial only 60 days out, the 90-day requirement would otherwise make summary judgment impossible; the 7-day alternative keeps it open. Diary the trial-setting order when it arrives.
Second question: the countdown to the hearing
Rule 56(b)(2) runs the papers backwards from the hearing date:
The motion, supporting documents and brief must be served at least 28 days before the date of the hearing. If the adverse party wishes to oppose summary judgment, the party must serve an answering brief. The answering brief and any opposing documents must be served at least 14 days before the date of the hearing. Any reply brief of the moving party must be served at least 7 days before the date of the hearing.
| Paper | Served no later than |
|---|---|
| Motion, supporting documents, brief | 28 days before the hearing |
| Answering brief and opposing documents | 14 days before the hearing |
| Reply brief | 7 days before the hearing |
The same 28-14-7 shape South Dakota uses, though South Dakota specifies calendar days and Idaho does not.
Note the conditional in the middle: "If the adverse party wishes to oppose summary judgment, the party must serve an answering brief." The answering brief is not optional if you intend to oppose — it is the vehicle.
The court can move the dates, and charge you for it
Rule 56(b)(3) is worth reading before you ask for an extension:
The court may alter or shorten the time periods and requirements of this rule for good cause shown, may continue the hearing, and may impose costs, attorney fees and sanctions against a party or the party's attorney, or both.
Most states' summary-judgment rules let the court adjust time. Idaho pairs that flexibility with an express power to impose costs, fees and sanctions in the same sentence — a reminder that a continuance sought late, or a schedule disrupted by one side's default, can carry a price.
The standard
Rule 56(a) uses the modern formulation and the mandatory verb:
A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense, or the part of each claim or defense, on which summary judgment is sought. The court must grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
"Must grant," where Vermont and Wyoming say "shall grant" and West Virginia the same. The practical effect is identical, but Idaho's phrasing is the current federal one.
Idaho requires no separate statement of undisputed material facts. There is no analogue to Wyoming's Rule 56.1 or South Dakota's § 15-6-56(c)(1); citations live in the briefs and affidavits.
Supporting and disputing facts
Rule 56(c)(1) gives the two routes:
A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by: (A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or (B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.
Idaho's admissibility objection in Rule 56(c)(2) is phrased slightly differently from the federal version and the difference is worth noting:
A party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact is not admissible in evidence at the hearing.
The federal rule asks whether material "cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible" — a question about potential. Idaho asks whether it "is not admissible in evidence at the hearing." Frame the objection in Idaho's terms.
On how far the judge looks, Rule 56(c)(3) is permissive: "The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record."
Affidavits, under Rule 56(c)(4), must "be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated," and "[s]worn or certified copies of all papers or parts of papers referred to in an affidavit must be attached to or served with the affidavit."
If you cannot answer yet
Rule 56(d):
If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order.
With only 14 days between the motion and the answering brief, and 21 days after service the earliest a motion can come, a Rule 56(d) affidavit is the realistic response to an early motion.
Failing to address a fact
Rule 56(e) gives the court four options where a party "fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c)":
(1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact; (2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion; (3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials, including the facts considered undisputed, show that the movant is entitled to it; or (4) issue any other appropriate order.
And where the motion succeeds only in part, Rule 56(f) lets the court "enter an order stating any material fact, including an item of damages or other relief, that is not genuinely in dispute and treating the fact as established in the case."