Suriya H. Smiley v. Columbia College Chicago
USA v. Ivy Tucker
Eighth (from website):
121918P.pdf 04/30/2013 Columbia Casualty Co. v. Curtis W. McGhee U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-1918 and No: 12-1922 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Council Bluffs [PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Bye and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Insurance. For a statement of facts in the case, see Genesis Insurance Co. v. City of Council Bluffs, 677 F.3d. 806 (8th Cir. 2012). In a declaratory judgment action to determine coverage under various insurance policies issued to the city, the district court did not err in rejecting the City's request to consider extrinsic evidence regarding the parties' intent or in denying the City's request for additional discovery on extrinsic evidence; in Genesis, the court determined that for purposes of a malicious prosecution action, the arrested persons' injuries occurred when they were prosecuted and were not a continuing injury; as a result, the policies, with one exception, were not in effect when the arrested persons' injuries occurred; with respect to that policy, which was in effect from August, 1977 to August 1978, when the charges were filed in the arrested persons' criminal prosecution, the City was entitled to coverage under the "reasonable expectations" doctrine. Judge Bye, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
123485P.pdf 04/30/2013 United States v. James Tebeau U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-3485 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau [PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Wollman and Beam, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. District court did not err in determining that defendant, the owner of property he used for music festivals, may be indicted under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 856(a)(2) for making a property available for drug distribution without any further illegal purpose ; the statute does not require proof that defendant had the illegal purpose to use, manufacture, sell or distribute a controlled substance, as it is sufficient that he intended to make his property available to others who had that purpose; this interpretation of the statute does not violate the Fifth Amendment due process clause or defendant's First Amendment rights; indictment satisfied the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c).Ninth:Tenth:DC:NetCoalition v. SECQuantum Entertainment Limited v. Department of the Interior