TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hapco Farms, Inc. v. Idaho Potato Commission

HAPCO FARMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IDAHO POTATO COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee

Hapco Farms, Inc. v. Idaho Potato Comm'n, 238 F.3d 468 (2d Cir. 2001)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 2, 2001
Docket
No. 2000
Judges
Kearse, Winter, McLaughlin
Citations
238 F.3d 46857 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 17282001 U.S. App. LEXIS 1488

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Hapco Farms, Inc. (“Hapco”), appeals from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Charles L. Brieant, Judge, dismissing its complaint against defendant Idaho Potato Commission (“IPC”) seeking a declaration pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1064 that certain federally registered certification marks and trademarks owned by IPC should be canceled, as well as damages based on IPC’s alleged use of those marks to violate federal antitrust laws. The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that IPC is an agency of the State of Idaho, funded by the State, and is thus entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. We reject Hapco’s challenge to that ruling. Most of the factors set out in Mancuso v. New York State Thruway Authority, 86 F.3d 289 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 992 , 117 S.Ct. 481 , 136 L.Ed.2d 375 (1996), in particular the first, second, fourth, and sixth, weigh in favor of the conclusion that IPC is a state agency. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Brieant’s opinion, reported at 95 F.Supp.2d 150 (2000)

We have considered all of Hapco’s contentions on this appeal and have found in them no basis for reversal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2003: 12005: 22006: 120032026peak 2005 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Mancuso v. N.Y. State Thruway Auth., 86 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 1996) 19
Idaho Potato Comm'n v. M & M Produce Farms & Sales, 95 F. Supp. 2d 150 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list