Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 30-1510 (2026)

Enforcement.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Enforcement.

(1) If the director believes, whether or not based upon an investigation conducted under section 30-1509, Idaho Code, that any person has engaged or is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of any provision of this chapter or any rule or order hereunder, the director may:

(a) Issue a cease and desist order;

(b) Issue an order imposing a civil penalty in an amount which may not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for any single violation or one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for multiple violations in a single proceeding or a series of related proceedings; or

(2) The director may institute any of the following actions in the appropriate courts of this state, or in the appropriate courts of another state, in addition to any legal or equitable remedies otherwise available:

(a) An action for a declaratory judgment;

(b) An action for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order or writ of mandamus to enjoin the violation and to ensure compliance with the provisions of this chapter or any rule or order of the director;

(d) An action for appointment of a receiver or conservator for the defendant or the defendant’s assets.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1977–1978 · leading case: Great W. United Corp. v. Kidwell, 439 F. Supp. 420 (N.D. Tex. 1977).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Great W. United Corp. v. Kidwell, 439 F. Supp. 420 (N.D. Tex. 1977). “Although, as Idaho itself suggested at trial on the merits, its extraterritorial regulation may be void, its state officials have previously taken the contrary position.”

Great W. United Corp. v. Kidwell, 577 F.2d 1256 (5th Cir. 1978). “It is also true that Great Western had little choice; the alternative for its officers was to risk criminal penalties under Idaho Code 30-1510. The first step in the sequence came not from Texas, but from Idaho, where the filing requirement binding on Great Western was created.”

Langbein v. Kirkland, 577 F.2d 1296 (5th Cir. 1978). · cites it 2× “It is also true that Great Western had little choice; the alternative for its officers was to risk criminal penalties under Idaho Code 30-1510. The first step in the sequence came not from Texas, but from Idaho, where the filing requirement binding on Great Western was created.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.