State ex rel. McEldowney v. Uhl

Idaho Supreme Court

State ex rel. McEldowney v. Uhl

728 P.2d 1324, 111 Idaho 915, 1986 Ida. LEXIS 553

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 5, 1986

DocketNo. 16215

StatusPublished

This text of 728 P.2d 1324 (State ex rel. McEldowney v. Uhl) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. McEldowney v. Uhl, 728 P.2d 1324, 111 Idaho 915, 1986 Ida. LEXIS 553 (Idaho 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court requiring compliance with a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Department of Finance of the State of Idaho. We affirm.

In early 1985 the Department of Finance was informed by Idaho residents of seminars being held by Herb Uhl and Carl Patterson, promoting an offering of $10,-000,000.00 “self-liquidating loans” in exchange for a $4,000.00 fee. The Department initiated an investigation, and in the course thereof served Uhl and Patterson with an administrative subpoena duces tecum. Uhl and Patterson refused to comply with the subpoena, and the Department obtained from the district court an order to show cause why Uhl and Patterson should not be required to comply.

At the hearing held thereon the Department indicated its investigation of the scheme promoted by Uhl and Patterson, and the necessity for the information sought by the subpoena. Uhl refused to controvert the statements of the Department, but rather moved to dismiss, asserting that the Department had no jurisdiction to issue the subpoena and that the district [916]*916court had no jurisdiction or authority to enforce compliance with the subpoena. At the hearing, Patterson admitted that he and Uhl were promoting the scheme. At the conclusion of the hearing the district court ruled that it had jurisdiction, that the Department had authority to issue the subpoena, and ordered compliance with the subpoena.

Patterson filed an action in federal court seeking an order that the Department cease and desist its investigations. That action was dismissed. Only Uhl has filed this appeal from the order of the district court requiring compliance with the subpoena.

I.C. § 30-1441 provides in pertinent part: [F]or the purpose of any investigation or proceeding under this act the director or any officer designated by him may ... take evidence and require the production of any books, papers, correspondence, memoranda, agreements or other documents or records which the director deems relevant or material to the inquiry.

Clearly, the statute confers authority on the Department to require the materials sought here. There is no assertion by Uhl that the Department was arbitrary or capricious, that its acts were overreaching, or that the action was taken solely to harass Uhl. See Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 66 S.Ct. 494, 90 L.Ed. 614 (1946).

While we find no Idaho case law on the subject, it is nevertheless clear that the legislative delegation of an investigatory power to an administrative agency is constitutionally permissible. Northwestern Electric Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 321 U.S. 119, 64 S.Ct. 451, 88 L.Ed. 596 (1944); In re Di Brizzi, 303 N.Y. 206, 101 N.E.2d 464 (1951).

The order of the district court is affirmed; costs and attorney fees to respondent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court requiring compliance with a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Department of Finance of the State of Idaho. We affirm.

In early 1985 the Department of Finance was informed by Idaho residents of seminars being held by Herb Uhl and Carl Patterson, promoting an offering of $10,-000,000.00 “self-liquidating loans” in exchange for a $4,000.00 fee. The Department initiated an investigation, and in the course thereof served Uhl and Patterson with an administrative subpoena duces tecum. Uhl and Patterson refused to comply with the subpoena, and the Department obtained from the district court an order to show cause why Uhl and Patterson should not be required to comply.

At the hearing held thereon the Department indicated its investigation of the scheme promoted by Uhl and Patterson, and the necessity for the information sought by the subpoena. Uhl refused to controvert the statements of the Department, but rather moved to dismiss, asserting that the Department had no jurisdiction to issue the subpoena and that the district [916]*916court had no jurisdiction or authority to enforce compliance with the subpoena. At the hearing, Patterson admitted that he and Uhl were promoting the scheme. At the conclusion of the hearing the district court ruled that it had jurisdiction, that the Department had authority to issue the subpoena, and ordered compliance with the subpoena.

Patterson filed an action in federal court seeking an order that the Department cease and desist its investigations. That action was dismissed. Only Uhl has filed this appeal from the order of the district court requiring compliance with the subpoena.

I.C. § 30-1441 provides in pertinent part: [F]or the purpose of any investigation or proceeding under this act the director or any officer designated by him may ... take evidence and require the production of any books, papers, correspondence, memoranda, agreements or other documents or records which the director deems relevant or material to the inquiry.

Clearly, the statute confers authority on the Department to require the materials sought here. There is no assertion by Uhl that the Department was arbitrary or capricious, that its acts were overreaching, or that the action was taken solely to harass Uhl. See Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 66 S.Ct. 494, 90 L.Ed. 614 (1946).

While we find no Idaho case law on the subject, it is nevertheless clear that the legislative delegation of an investigatory power to an administrative agency is constitutionally permissible. Northwestern Electric Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 321 U.S. 119, 64 S.Ct. 451, 88 L.Ed. 596 (1944); In re Di Brizzi, 303 N.Y. 206, 101 N.E.2d 464 (1951).

The order of the district court is affirmed; costs and attorney fees to respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

728 P.2d 1324, 111 Idaho 915, 1986 Ida. LEXIS 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-mceldowney-v-uhl-idaho-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack