District Court, D. Idaho — appointed by Ronald Reagan
Computrol, Inc. v. Lowrance Electronics, Inc.
District Court, D. Idaho · 1994-11-10 · cited 1×
This case involves a patent infringement dispute in which Computrol, Inc. alleged that Lowrance Electronics, Inc. infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,260,912 through its sonar fish-finding products and an accessory enabling a side-looking feature. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full after independent review of the record, objections, and applicable law, finding no clear error. The court granted Computrol's motion for a preliminary injunction, ordering Lowrance to cease infringing sales and disable the relevant software in its products pending trial, subject to Computrol posting security. The magistrate had concluded that Computrol demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, a balance of equities favoring relief, and that the public interest supported enforcement of patent rights.
propertybusiness & regulatory
Browning v. Vernon
District Court, D. Idaho · 1994-09-30 · cited 10×
This case was a class action lawsuit brought by participants in Idaho's rider program at the North Idaho Correctional Institution (NICI), alleging that the state's procedures for rebuttal hearings violated their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to provide adequate notice and opportunities to be heard, as required by Idaho Code § 19-2601. The district court conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, adopting it with one modification to include the right to an impartial hearing examiner. The court granted summary judgment in part, ordering the defendants to produce written regulations governing the program within sixty days and declaring that five specific past practices—such as failing to notify riders of witness rights, provide staff evaluations or psychological reports, or allow adequate preparation time for segregated riders—violated due process, while denying relief on other claims. The decision was based on the need for procedural safeguards to ensure fairness in the hearings without addressing remedies for past violations, which were left to state post-conviction proceedings.
criminal lawcivil rights
Doe v. Cutter Biological, a Division of Miles, Inc.
District Court, D. Idaho · 1994-05-12 · cited 7×
In this case, a hemophiliac plaintiff who tested positive for HIV sued manufacturers of Factor VIII clotting products, alleging that one or more doses administered between 1979 and 1985 caused his infection, but he could not identify which specific product or defendant was responsible. The court addressed whether Idaho law would permit recovery under alternative liability theories such as market share liability, enterprise liability, or concert of action when causation could not be pinpointed, and whether the state's blood shield statute barred claims for strict liability or breach of implied warranties. It concluded that existing Idaho precedent and tort reform measures, including restrictions on joint and several liability, did not support adopting any of the proposed alternative liability doctrines. The court further held that Idaho Code § 39-3702 applied to the commercial processors of the blood products, thereby precluding strict liability and warranty claims and limiting the plaintiff to negligence theories only.
torts & liabilityhealthcare
Groves v. Firebird Raceway, Inc.
District Court, D. Idaho · 1994-04-26 · cited 2×
Gary and Kathy Groves sued Firebird Raceway, Inc., the National Hot Rod Association, and others for negligence after Gary Groves crashed and suffered burns during a sanctioned race at the Idaho track, alleging that inadequate firefighting equipment and training delayed extinguishing the fire and worsened his injuries; Kathy Groves also claimed loss of consortium. The plaintiffs did not allege that the defendants caused the crash, and Gary Groves had signed a release and waiver of liability as a condition of participating. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action, holding that the release was valid and enforceable under Idaho law and barred the negligence claims. Because the loss-of-consortium claim was derivative of the underlying tort claim, it was likewise precluded.
torts & liabilityprocedure
Doe v. CUTTER BIOLOGICAL, a DIV. OF MILES INC.
District Court, D. Idaho · 1994-02-24 · cited 8×
The case involves plaintiff John Doe, a hemophiliac who received Factor VIII clotting products from defendants Miles Inc. and Armour between 1979 and 1985, testing positive for HIV in 1991 and suing the manufacturers in 1992 for resulting injuries. The court addressed pending motions including defendants' requests for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds under Idaho Code § 5-219(4) and plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add punitive damages. It denied the summary judgment motions, finding that Doe's injury was not objectively ascertainable until his 1991 HIV diagnosis based on the record of symptoms and medical advice, making the 1992 filing timely. The court granted the motion to amend, allowing addition of the punitive damages claim.
torts & liabilityprocedure
Idaho Sporting Congress, Inc. v. United States Forest Service
District Court, D. Idaho · 1994-02-14 · cited 4×
The case involved a challenge by environmental groups to the U.S. Forest Service's exemption of certain emergency salvage timber sales in national forests from administrative appeals under an existing regulation, 36 C.F.R. § 217.4(a)(11), after the 1992 enactment of the Appeals Reform Act (ARA), which required the agency to establish new notice-and-comment and appeal procedures for Forest Service decisions. The plaintiffs argued that the ARA superseded the exemption authority, making post-1992 exemptions unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court held that the ARA directed the Forest Service to implement changes through rulemaking but did not immediately displace existing regulations, allowing the agency to continue using prior rules—including emergency exemptions—during a reasonable transition period until new regulations took effect on January 4, 1994. It therefore granted the Forest Service's motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion, and dismissed the case, entering a declaratory judgment confirming that the exemptions during the interim period were permissible.
environmentfederal powerprocedure