Hapco Farms, Inc. v. Idaho Potato Commission
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Walker v. City of Waterbury (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 2006)
- The State of Idaho Potato Commission v. G & T Terminal Packaging, Inc., the State of Idaho Potato Commission v. G & T Terminal Packaging, Inc. (9th Cir. 2005)
- State v. G&T Terminal Packaging, Inc. (9th Cir. 2005)
- Idaho Potato Commission v. M & M Produce Farm & Sales (2d Cir. 2003)
- Idaho Potato Commission v. M & M Produce Farm & Sales (2d Cir. 2003)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.