Airstream, Inc. v. CIT Financial Services, Inc.
Idaho Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
BAKES, Justice.
CIT Financial Services, Inc. (CIT), appeals from the district court’s finding that CIT is responsible to Airstream for payment of two checks drawn by an Airstream recreational vehicle dealer who had a flooring arrangement with CIT. We reverse and remand for additional findings.
This dispute arose from the following facts. Kirk Shuler, doing business as Wheels Unlimited, was a dealer in recreational vehicles which he purchased from Airstream. Shuler had an arrangement with CIT to finance his purchase of recreational vehicles. Under this arrangement, known as a “flooring…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Dinneen v. FinchIdaho Supreme Court · 1979
- Pierstorff v. Gray's Auto ShopIdaho Supreme Court · 1937
- Farmers State Bank v. CooperSupreme Court of Kansas · 1980
- Ottesen v. Board of Commissioners of Madison CountyIdaho Supreme Court · 1985
- Worley Highway District v. Kootenai CountyIdaho Supreme Court · 1978
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Sweeney v. OtterIdaho Supreme Court · 1990
- Brewster of Lynchburg, Incorporated v. Dial CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1994
- State v. BronnenbergIdaho Court of Appeals · 1993
- Airstream, Inc. v. CIT Financial Services, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1988
- Rowan v. RileyIdaho Supreme Court · 2003
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.