forfeiture clause in Idaho

1965From all the evidence, including any additional evidence, the court should make specific findings as to the value of the property at the date of the breach of the contract; and as to plaintiff’s damages; and determine therefrom whether enforcement of the forfeiture clause of the contract will result in imposition of a penalty; and enter judgment accordingly, granting or denying restitution, in whole or in part, in conformity with the doctrine announced by this court in Walker v. Nunnenkamp, 88 Idaho 222 , 398 P.2d 444 (1965), 84 Idaho 485 , 373 P.2d 559 (1962); Anderson v. Michel, 88 Idaho 228

1965From all the evidence, including any additional evidence, the court should make specific findings as to the value of the property at the date of the breach of the contract; and as to plaintiff’s damages; and determine therefrom whether enforcement of the forfeiture clause of the contract will result in imposition of a penalty; and enter judgment accordingly, granting or denying restitution, in whole or in part, in conformity with the doctrine announced by this court in Walker v. Nunnenkamp, 88 Idaho 222 , 398 P.2d 444 (1965), 84 Idaho 485 , 373 P.2d 559 (1962); Anderson v. Michel, 88 Idaho 228

2016Huber relies on Hollenbeck v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., where the Eastern District of Missouri considered whether to enforce a forfeiture, or “bad boy,” clause in a benefit plan that accrued after January 1, 1975, when ERISA became effective, but before January 1, 1976, when ERISA’s anti-forfeiture provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1053 , became effective. 605 F.Supp. 421, 427-28 (E.D.Mo.1984) aff'd, 780 F.2d 20 (8th Cir.1985).

2010In addressing a request to set aside a forfeiture under this rule, in State v. Quick Release Bail Bonds, 144 Idaho 651 , 167 P.3d 788 (Ct. App. 2007), we described factors to be considered by the trial court and the standard for our review of the trial court‟s decision, as follows: The decision whether to set aside a forfeiture or exonerate bond under I.C.R. 46(e)(4) is committed to the trial court‟s discretion.

2010In addressing a request to set aside a forfeiture under this rule, in State v. Quick Release Bail Bonds, 144 Idaho 651 , 167 P.3d 788 (Ct. App. 2007), we described factors to be considered by the trial court and the standard for our review of the trial court‟s decision, as follows: The decision whether to set aside a forfeiture or exonerate bond under I.C.R. 46(e)(4) is committed to the trial court‟s discretion.

2010State v. Rupp, 123 Idaho 1, 3 , 843 P.2d 151, 153 (1992) (motion to set aside forfeiture); State v. Fry, 128 Idaho 50 , 910 P.2d 164 (Ct. App. 1994) (same).

2010State v. Rupp, 123 Idaho 1, 3 , 843 P.2d 151, 153 (1992) (motion to set aside forfeiture); State v. Fry, 128 Idaho 50 , 910 P.2d 164 (Ct. App. 1994) (same).

1993In a separate, yet related, criminal case, Allen entered an Alford plea, see North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), to delivery of marijuana in violation of I.C. § 37~2732(a)(l)(B), a felony.

1993In a separate, yet related, criminal case, Allen entered an Alford plea, see North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), to delivery of marijuana in violation of I.C. § 37~2732(a)(l)(B), a felony.

1991Dodge v. United States, 272 U.S. 530 , 47 S.Ct. 191 , 71 L.Ed. 392 (1926); United States v. An Article of Device “Theramatic, ” 715 F.2d 1339 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1025 , 104 S.Ct. 1281 , 79 L.Ed.2d 685 (1984); United States v. Eighty-eight Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars, 671 F.2d 293 (8th Cir.1982).

1991Dodge v. United States, 272 U.S. 530 , 47 S.Ct. 191 , 71 L.Ed. 392 (1926); United States v. An Article of Device “Theramatic, ” 715 F.2d 1339 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1025 , 104 S.Ct. 1281 , 79 L.Ed.2d 685 (1984); United States v. Eighty-eight Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars, 671 F.2d 293 (8th Cir.1982).

1991Dodge v. United States, 272 U.S. 530 , 47 S.Ct. 191 , 71 L.Ed. 392 (1926); United States v. An Article of Device “Theramatic, ” 715 F.2d 1339 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1025 , 104 S.Ct. 1281 , 79 L.Ed.2d 685 (1984); United States v. Eighty-eight Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars, 671 F.2d 293 (8th Cir.1982).

1991Dodge v. United States, 272 U.S. 530 , 47 S.Ct. 191 , 71 L.Ed. 392 (1926); United States v. An Article of Device “Theramatic, ” 715 F.2d 1339 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1025 , 104 S.Ct. 1281 , 79 L.Ed.2d 685 (1984); United States v. Eighty-eight Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars, 671 F.2d 293 (8th Cir.1982).

1991Dodge v. United States, 272 U.S. 530 , 47 S.Ct. 191 , 71 L.Ed. 392 (1926); United States v. An Article of Device “Theramatic, ” 715 F.2d 1339 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1025 , 104 S.Ct. 1281 , 79 L.Ed.2d 685 (1984); United States v. Eighty-eight Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars, 671 F.2d 293 (8th Cir.1982).

1991Dodge v. United States, 272 U.S. 530 , 47 S.Ct. 191 , 71 L.Ed. 392 (1926); United States v. An Article of Device “Theramatic, ” 715 F.2d 1339 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1025 , 104 S.Ct. 1281 , 79 L.Ed.2d 685 (1984); United States v. Eighty-eight Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars, 671 F.2d 293 (8th Cir.1982).

1991Dodge v. United States, 272 U.S. 530 , 47 S.Ct. 191 , 71 L.Ed. 392 (1926); United States v. An Article of Device “Theramatic, ” 715 F.2d 1339 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1025 , 104 S.Ct. 1281 , 79 L.Ed.2d 685 (1984); United States v. Eighty-eight Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars, 671 F.2d 293 (8th Cir.1982).

1985The state of Washington was the state of place of performance of the contract. (21) The law of the state of Washington, as applicable to title retaining contracts of conditional sale for the sale and purchase of real property, including personal property, is stat ed in the cases of Ball [Hall] v. Nordgren, 196 Wash. 68 , 81 Pac. (2) 857 ; Van Keulen v. Sealander, 183 Wash. 634, 39 [49] Pac. (2) 19; and Thiel v. Miller, 122 Wash. 52 , 209 Pac. 1080 [1081], The law of the state of Washington is that a forfeiture clause, such as contained in the instant contract, is not void as against public pol

1985The state of Washington was the state of place of performance of the contract. (21) The law of the state of Washington, as applicable to title retaining contracts of conditional sale for the sale and purchase of real property, including personal property, is stat ed in the cases of Ball [Hall] v. Nordgren, 196 Wash. 68 , 81 Pac. (2) 857 ; Van Keulen v. Sealander, 183 Wash. 634, 39 [49] Pac. (2) 19; and Thiel v. Miller, 122 Wash. 52 , 209 Pac. 1080 [1081], The law of the state of Washington is that a forfeiture clause, such as contained in the instant contract, is not void as against public pol

1985The state of Washington was the state of place of performance of the contract. (21) The law of the state of Washington, as applicable to title retaining contracts of conditional sale for the sale and purchase of real property, including personal property, is stat ed in the cases of Ball [Hall] v. Nordgren, 196 Wash. 68 , 81 Pac. (2) 857 ; Van Keulen v. Sealander, 183 Wash. 634, 39 [49] Pac. (2) 19; and Thiel v. Miller, 122 Wash. 52 , 209 Pac. 1080 [1081], The law of the state of Washington is that a forfeiture clause, such as contained in the instant contract, is not void as against public pol

1985The state of Washington was the state of place of performance of the contract. (21) The law of the state of Washington, as applicable to title retaining contracts of conditional sale for the sale and purchase of real property, including personal property, is stat ed in the cases of Ball [Hall] v. Nordgren, 196 Wash. 68 , 81 Pac. (2) 857 ; Van Keulen v. Sealander, 183 Wash. 634, 39 [49] Pac. (2) 19; and Thiel v. Miller, 122 Wash. 52 , 209 Pac. 1080 [1081], The law of the state of Washington is that a forfeiture clause, such as contained in the instant contract, is not void as against public pol

1965From all the evidence, including any additional evidence, the court should make specific findings as to the value of the property at the date of the breach of the contract; and as to plaintiff’s damages; and determine therefrom whether enforcement of the forfeiture clause of the contract will result in imposition of a penalty; and enter judgment accordingly, granting or denying restitution, in whole or in part, in conformity with the doctrine announced by this court in Walker v. Nunnenkamp, 88 Idaho 222 , 398 P.2d 444 (1965), 84 Idaho 485 , 373 P.2d 559 (1962); Anderson v. Michel, 88 Idaho 228

1965From all the evidence, including any additional evidence, the court should make specific findings as to the value of the property at the date of the breach of the contract; and as to plaintiff’s damages; and determine therefrom whether enforcement of the forfeiture clause of the contract will result in imposition of a penalty; and enter judgment accordingly, granting or denying restitution, in whole or in part, in conformity with the doctrine announced by this court in Walker v. Nunnenkamp, 88 Idaho 222 , 398 P.2d 444 (1965), 84 Idaho 485 , 373 P.2d 559 (1962); Anderson v. Michel, 88 Idaho 228

1965From all the evidence, including any additional evidence, the court should make specific findings as to the value of the property at the date of the breach of the contract; and as to plaintiff’s damages; and determine therefrom whether enforcement of the forfeiture clause of the contract will result in imposition of a penalty; and enter judgment accordingly, granting or denying restitution, in whole or in part, in conformity with the doctrine announced by this court in Walker v. Nunnenkamp, 88 Idaho 222 , 398 P.2d 444 (1965), 84 Idaho 485 , 373 P.2d 559 (1962); Anderson v. Michel, 88 Idaho 228

1965From all the evidence, including any additional evidence, the court should make specific findings as to the value of the property at the date of the breach of the contract; and as to plaintiff’s damages; and determine therefrom whether enforcement of the forfeiture clause of the contract will result in imposition of a penalty; and enter judgment accordingly, granting or denying restitution, in whole or in part, in conformity with the doctrine announced by this court in Walker v. Nunnenkamp, 88 Idaho 222 , 398 P.2d 444 (1965), 84 Idaho 485 , 373 P.2d 559 (1962); Anderson v. Michel, 88 Idaho 228

1965From all the evidence, including any additional evidence, the court should make specific findings as to the value of the property at the date of the breach of the contract; and as to plaintiff’s damages; and determine therefrom whether enforcement of the forfeiture clause of the contract will result in imposition of a penalty; and enter judgment accordingly, granting or denying restitution, in whole or in part, in conformity with the doctrine announced by this court in Walker v. Nunnenkamp, 88 Idaho 222 , 398 P.2d 444 (1965), 84 Idaho 485 , 373 P.2d 559 (1962); Anderson v. Michel, 88 Idaho 228

1965From all the evidence, including any additional evidence, the court should make specific findings as to the value of the property at the date of the breach of the contract; and as to plaintiff’s damages; and determine therefrom whether enforcement of the forfeiture clause of the contract will result in imposition of a penalty; and enter judgment accordingly, granting or denying restitution, in whole or in part, in conformity with the doctrine announced by this court in Walker v. Nunnenkamp, 88 Idaho 222 , 398 P.2d 444 (1965), 84 Idaho 485 , 373 P.2d 559 (1962); Anderson v. Michel, 88 Idaho 228

1965From all the evidence, including any additional evidence, the court should make specific findings as to the value of the property at the date of the breach of the contract; and as to plaintiff’s damages; and determine therefrom whether enforcement of the forfeiture clause of the contract will result in imposition of a penalty; and enter judgment accordingly, granting or denying restitution, in whole or in part, in conformity with the doctrine announced by this court in Walker v. Nunnenkamp, 88 Idaho 222 , 398 P.2d 444 (1965), 84 Idaho 485 , 373 P.2d 559 (1962); Anderson v. Michel, 88 Idaho 228

1965From all the evidence, including any additional evidence, the court should make specific findings as to the value of the property at the date of the breach of the contract; and as to plaintiff’s damages; and determine therefrom whether enforcement of the forfeiture clause of the contract will result in imposition of a penalty; and enter judgment accordingly, granting or denying restitution, in whole or in part, in conformity with the doctrine announced by this court in Walker v. Nunnenkamp, 88 Idaho 222 , 398 P.2d 444 (1965), 84 Idaho 485 , 373 P.2d 559 (1962); Anderson v. Michel, 88 Idaho 228

1965From all the evidence, including any additional evidence, the court should make specific findings as to the value of the property at the date of the breach of the contract; and as to plaintiff’s damages; and determine therefrom whether enforcement of the forfeiture clause of the contract will result in imposition of a penalty; and enter judgment accordingly, granting or denying restitution, in whole or in part, in conformity with the doctrine announced by this court in Walker v. Nunnenkamp, 88 Idaho 222 , 398 P.2d 444 (1965), 84 Idaho 485 , 373 P.2d 559 (1962); Anderson v. Michel, 88 Idaho 228

1965From all the evidence, including any additional evidence, the court should make specific findings as to the value of the property at the date of the breach of the contract; and as to plaintiff’s damages; and determine therefrom whether enforcement of the forfeiture clause of the contract will result in imposition of a penalty; and enter judgment accordingly, granting or denying restitution, in whole or in part, in conformity with the doctrine announced by this court in Walker v. Nunnenkamp, 88 Idaho 222 , 398 P.2d 444 (1965), 84 Idaho 485 , 373 P.2d 559 (1962); Anderson v. Michel, 88 Idaho 228

1965From all the evidence, including any additional evidence, the court should make specific findings as to the value of the property at the date of the breach of the contract; and as to plaintiff’s damages; and determine therefrom whether enforcement of the forfeiture clause of the contract will result in imposition of a penalty; and enter judgment accordingly, granting or denying restitution, in whole or in part, in conformity with the doctrine announced by this court in Walker v. Nunnenkamp, 88 Idaho 222 , 398 P.2d 444 (1965), 84 Idaho 485 , 373 P.2d 559 (1962); Anderson v. Michel, 88 Idaho 228

1965From all the evidence, including any additional evidence, the court should make specific findings as to the value of the property at the date of the breach of the contract; and as to plaintiff’s damages; and determine therefrom whether enforcement of the forfeiture clause of the contract will result in imposition of a penalty; and enter judgment accordingly, granting or denying restitution, in whole or in part, in conformity with the doctrine announced by this court in Walker v. Nunnenkamp, 88 Idaho 222 , 398 P.2d 444 (1965), 84 Idaho 485 , 373 P.2d 559 (1962); Anderson v. Michel, 88 Idaho 228

1965From all the evidence, including any additional evidence, the court should make specific findings as to the value of the property at the date of the breach of the contract; and as to plaintiff’s damages; and determine therefrom whether enforcement of the forfeiture clause of the contract will result in imposition of a penalty; and enter judgment accordingly, granting or denying restitution, in whole or in part, in conformity with the doctrine announced by this court in Walker v. Nunnenkamp, 88 Idaho 222 , 398 P.2d 444 (1965), 84 Idaho 485 , 373 P.2d 559 (1962); Anderson v. Michel, 88 Idaho 228

1965From all the evidence, including any additional evidence, the court should make specific findings as to the value of the property at the date of the breach of the contract; and as to plaintiff’s damages; and determine therefrom whether enforcement of the forfeiture clause of the contract will result in imposition of a penalty; and enter judgment accordingly, granting or denying restitution, in whole or in part, in conformity with the doctrine announced by this court in Walker v. Nunnenkamp, 88 Idaho 222 , 398 P.2d 444 (1965), 84 Idaho 485 , 373 P.2d 559 (1962); Anderson v. Michel, 88 Idaho 228

1965From all the evidence, including any additional evidence, the court should make specific findings as to the value of the property at the date of the breach of the contract; and as to plaintiff’s damages; and determine therefrom whether enforcement of the forfeiture clause of the contract will result in imposition of a penalty; and enter judgment accordingly, granting or denying restitution, in whole or in part, in conformity with the doctrine announced by this court in Walker v. Nunnenkamp, 88 Idaho 222 , 398 P.2d 444 (1965), 84 Idaho 485 , 373 P.2d 559 (1962); Anderson v. Michel, 88 Idaho 228

1965From all the evidence, including any additional evidence, the court should make specific findings as to the value of the property at the date of the breach of the contract; and as to plaintiff’s damages; and determine therefrom whether enforcement of the forfeiture clause of the contract will result in imposition of a penalty; and enter judgment accordingly, granting or denying restitution, in whole or in part, in conformity with the doctrine announced by this court in Walker v. Nunnenkamp, 88 Idaho 222 , 398 P.2d 444 (1965), 84 Idaho 485 , 373 P.2d 559 (1962); Anderson v. Michel, 88 Idaho 228

1933(Burg Bros. v. Bercut et al., 73 Cal. App. 114 , 238 Pac. 166 ; 39 Cye. 1343, subd.

1933(Burg Bros. v. Bercut et al., 73 Cal. App. 114 , 238 Pac. 166 ; 39 Cye. 1343, subd.

1911In the case of Cue v. Johnson, 73 Kan. 558 , 85 Pac. 598 , which was a case somewhat like the one under consideration, the court said: “It seems to be a well-established rule in such cases that the party claiming the benefit of a forfeiture must show himself to be strictly within the terms of the instrument which confers that right.

1911In the case of Cue v. Johnson, 73 Kan. 558 , 85 Pac. 598 , which was a case somewhat like the one under consideration, the court said: “It seems to be a well-established rule in such cases that the party claiming the benefit of a forfeiture must show himself to be strictly within the terms of the instrument which confers that right.