District Court, D. Idaho — appointed by Dwight Eisenhower
In Re Gould
District Court, D. Idaho · 1987-09-29 · cited 7×
In this bankruptcy appeal, the district court considered whether assignment of rents clauses in two deeds of trust held by lenders Occidental Life Insurance Company and Rainer Financial Services created absolute assignments of rents or only assignments for additional security. The court reversed the bankruptcy court's determination that the clauses provided only security interests, concluding instead that they effected absolute assignments. Applying Idaho law, the court reasoned that the parties' intent must be ascertained from the plain and unambiguous language of the deeds themselves, which explicitly described the assignments as absolute and not for security only, and that extrinsic evidence or factors from unrelated cases were inapplicable here due to the clear contract terms and exceptions in state statutes.
propertyprocedure
Onweiler v. United States
District Court, D. Idaho · 1977-05-25
This case involved an Idaho state legislator who served as a VA fee appraiser for five years before the VA Regional Director suspended him without a hearing based on a possible conflict of interest under agency Circular 25-66-6, later reinstating him after his legislative term ended. The plaintiff sued for lost fees, equitable relief, and a declaration that the suspension was unconstitutional, seeking damages under $10,000. The court held that the Director lacked authority to suspend the plaintiff without first providing notice and an opportunity to be heard on whether a conflict actually existed. The reasoning was that the circular requires an individualized factual determination rather than a blanket exclusion of legislators, the circular was not properly published, and the plaintiff's interest in continued approval as an appraiser constituted a protectable property or liberty interest triggering due process protections.
civil rightsfederal powerprocedure
JC Penney Company v. PARRISH COMPANY
District Court, D. Idaho · 1972-03-03 · cited 6×
The case involved J.C. Penney Company suing Parrish Company, an Idaho retailer, for advertising, displaying, and selling merchandise bearing Penney's registered trade names and trademarks without authorization. The court found that Penney owned the marks as private labels, that unauthorized use was likely to cause consumer confusion about source or affiliation and to dilute the marks' distinctiveness, and that ownership of goods does not confer the right to sell them under the marks. The court concluded that the defendant's actions constituted federal trademark infringement, false description, common law unfair competition, and violations of Idaho's Consumer Protection Act and anti-dilution statute. It therefore permanently enjoined Parrish from such uses, with a narrow exception for certain bulk railroad car purchases where the defendant lacked prior knowledge of the merchandise contents.
business & regulatory
JC Penney Company v. Parrish Company
District Court, D. Idaho · 1971-08-13 · cited 4×
The case involves J.C. Penney Company suing Parrish Company, operator of a nearby furniture and appliance store, for trademark infringement and unfair competition under federal law. Penney alleged that Parrish acquired and sold genuine Penney-branded merchandise, including apparel with marks like PENNEYS, TOWNCRAFT, and CAROL EVANS, without authorization, while advertising it at lower prices, sometimes in defective condition, and without removing original tags. The court, after reviewing evidence and arguments, issued a temporary injunction barring Parrish from displaying, advertising, or selling any items bearing Penney's registered trademarks during the lawsuit's pendency. The decision rested on findings that such sales risked confusing consumers about product quality, pricing, and sourcing, potentially causing irreparable harm to Penney's reputation and goodwill, with no adequate legal remedy available. Jurisdiction was based on federal trademark statutes, and the court concluded the defendant's conduct constituted infringement and unfair competition.
business & regulatory
United States v. Lazy F C Ranch
District Court, D. Idaho · 1971-04-08 · cited 8×
The case involved the United States seeking to recover payments made to a ranch partnership and its partners under the Soil Bank Act's Acreage Reserve and Conservation Reserve Programs, alleging that the contracts violated eligibility rules because only the partnership qualified as a producer, not the individual partners who leased land from it. The court decided that the government could not recover the funds, dismissing the action. The reasoning was that there was no intent to deceive required for a false claim under 31 U.S.C. § 231, the contracts were fully performed, the government received the intended benefits of reduced cultivation, and the payments were not erroneous in a way that allowed recovery without showing unjust enrichment or injury.
business & regulatoryfederal power
Berryman Ex Rel. Hart v. Hein
District Court, D. Idaho · 1971-02-17 · cited 5×
This case involved three minor students suspended from Meridian Senior High School in Idaho for violating a school dress code provision requiring boys' hair to be trimmed above the eyebrows, off the ears, and above the collar, with sideburns not extending below the ear. The students sued the school authorities under 28 U.S.C. § 1343, claiming the suspensions violated their rights under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, including equal protection, and sought injunctive relief. The court held that personal appearance, including hair length, constitutes a protected personal liberty under the Ninth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, subject only to reasonable state regulation advancing a legitimate interest. While rejecting the First Amendment symbolic expression claim and finding no equal protection violation, the court determined that the school failed to demonstrate any substantial relationship between the hair regulation and educational goals such as health, safety, discipline, or academics, rendering the suspensions unconstitutional as applied. The court granted injunctive relief preventing disciplinary action absent such justification but declined to rule the dress code unconstitutional per se.
civil rights