District Court, D. Idaho — appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson
Stout v. Heckler
District Court, D. Idaho · 1984-02-01 · cited 3×
The plaintiff, Philip J. Stout, Jr., brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of his application for Social Security disability benefits based on a diagnosis of narcolepsy. The court applied the sequential evaluation process under 20 CFR 404.1520, noting that the claimant had established an inability to perform his past relevant work as a department store manager and presented evidence of a severe impairment. It determined that the Administrative Law Judge's finding of no severe impairment under 20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 404.1521 was not supported by substantial evidence, as there was no showing that the claimant could perform most jobs. The court therefore reversed the Secretary's decision and remanded the case for continuation of the sequential review process.
healthcarefederal power
Schwartzmiller v. Gardner
District Court, D. Idaho · 1983-07-20 · cited 13×
The case involved a habeas corpus petition by Dean Schwartzmiller challenging his convictions under Idaho Code § 18-6607 for lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor, on grounds that the statute was unconstitutionally vague, violated due process by presuming intent or excluding consent evidence, denied equal protection through arbitrary classifications, and imposed cruel and unusual punishment via potential life imprisonment. On remand after exhaustion issues were resolved, the court analyzed the statute's language against Supreme Court vagueness standards from cases like Kolender v. Lawson, reviewed Idaho Supreme Court interpretations, and applied proportionality tests from Solem v. Helm for the sentencing claim. The court held that the statute was unconstitutionally vague on its face due to insufficient definiteness and risk of arbitrary enforcement, but upheld two convictions based on prior state court narrowing interpretations that provided fair notice, rejected the other constitutional claims as unpersuasive, and denied the petition.
criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure
Ulrich v. Schweiker
District Court, D. Idaho · 1982-09-07 · cited 13×
The case involved a plaintiff who had prevailed in federal court on her appeal of the denial of Supplemental Security Income benefits by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and who then moved to recover costs and attorney fees. The court awarded the requested $71 in costs under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920 but denied the $900 request for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The court explained that costs may be awarded against the United States regardless of whether its position was substantially justified, but attorney fees require a showing that the government’s position lacked substantial justification or that special circumstances would make an award unjust. Applying the standard of reasonableness slightly above a mere reasonableness test, the court found the Secretary’s denial substantially justified because the case presented a genuine factual dispute over the plaintiff’s headaches and disability status that made the outcome a close call based on the administrative record.
healthcareprocedurefederal power
Wolverton v. Schweiker
District Court, D. Idaho · 1982-03-02 · cited 68×
The case involved a plaintiff who prevailed in a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to reverse the Secretary's denial of Social Security disability benefits and then sought attorney fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. The court held that EAJA applies to Title II Social Security cases because 42 U.S.C. § 406 does not authorize fee awards against the government, that the plaintiff had incurred recoverable fees, and that the statute's effective date allowed recovery only for fees incurred in the federal court action. The court therefore directed the plaintiff to resubmit an application limited to court-related fees and costs, excluding any administrative proceedings before the Secretary.
procedurefederal powerhealthcare
U. S. Marketing, Inc. v. Leroy
District Court, D. Idaho · 1981-10-30
In this case, plaintiffs U.S. Marketing, Inc. and related parties filed a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking to declare the Idaho Moral Nuisance Abatement Act unconstitutional and to enjoin its enforcement after the Idaho Supreme Court had remanded related state proceedings involving the same parties and statute. The federal district court dismissed the action, applying the abstention doctrine from Younger v. Harris and Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd. The court reasoned that the ongoing state nuisance proceedings, which were closely tied to enforcement of obscenity laws, warranted federal restraint under principles of comity and federalism unless exceptions such as bad faith, harassment, or a statute that is flagrantly unconstitutional on its face were present. No such exceptions applied here, as the state action remained pending and the plaintiffs had not alleged bad faith.
free speechcriminal lawcivil rightsfederal power
Landis v. Watt
District Court, D. Idaho · 1981-03-23 · cited 5×
This case involves plaintiffs appealing the Interior Board of Land Appeals' rejection and cancellation of 29 oil and gas leases located in Colorado, New Mexico, and Montana, with the suit filed in Idaho where some plaintiffs reside. The Secretary moved to dismiss for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e), arguing that real property was involved and thus venue was controlled by subsection (e)(3) rather than (e)(4). The court held that real property was involved based on the legislative history of the statute and the plaintiffs' request for issuance of the leases, distinguishing the case from Ashley v. Andrus, and therefore transferred the action to the District of Montana instead of dismissing it.
propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory