USA v. Hardy - Medication of prisoner for competency / protection of other prisoners.
Cheryl Harris v. Kellogg Brown & Root Services
William Hayes v. WalMart Stores Inc
Daniel Greenberg v. Procter & Gamble Company
Terrence Barber v. City of Chicago
Kirk Chrzanowski v. Louis Bianchi
Kurtis B. v. James Kopp
Brandon Stollings v. Ryobi Technologies, Inc
KM Enterprises Incorporated v. Global Traffic Technologies
Citizens Health Corporation v. Kathleen Sebelius
Gary E. Peel v. Deborah Peel
Eighth Circuit (From site):
122790P.pdf 08/02/2013 Jarek Charvat v. Mutual First Fed. Credit Union U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-2790 and No: 12-2797 U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Melloy, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Electronic Fund Transfer Act. In action alleging defendants violated the Act by failing to have an exterior fee notice posted on or at their ATM machines, the district court erred in finding plaintiff did not have standing because he did not have an injury in fact; assuming without deciding that plaintiff waived the claim that the $2.00 fee he was charged constituted an injury in fact, plaintiff still had standing to pursue his claim against the defendants based on the informational injury he allegedly sustained because of the failure to post the notice; once he alleged a violation of the notice provisions of the Act in connection with his ATM transactions, plaintiff had standing to claim damages; further, the injury was fairly traceable to defendants' conduct. 122893P.pdf 08/02/2013 United States v. Alvin Clay U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-2893 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Colloton and Benton, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - habeas. Assuming, without deciding that the Government used perjured testimony in obtaining Clay's conviction and knew or should have know it was perjured, his allegation of error is an allegation of a trial error and not a structural error and must be evaluated under the harmless-error standard; applying the harmless-error standard, the claimed false testimony could not have actually prejudiced the jury's verdict in light of the overall strength of the government's case and the fact that the witness was thoroughly impeached at trial 122946P.pdf 08/02/2013 Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mark Ritchie U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-2946 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis [PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Murphy and Smith, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. In a Section 1983 action challenging the process by which Minnesota election officials confirm the eligibility of voters who register on election day and a provision of the Minnesota Constitution denying the right of persons under guardianship to vote, the district court did not err in finding that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under Section 1983 with respect to their registration issues as their allegations did not raise any of the aggravating factors this court identified in Pettengill v. Putnam County R-1 School District, 472 F.2d 121 (8th Cir. 1973), any discriminatory or other intentional misconduct or any defect that would cause Minnesota's system to be fundamentally unfair; with respect to the guardianship claims, plaintiffs failed to show they had standing to raise them as they failed to allege that any plaintiff had been denied the right vote under the provision. 131134P.pdf 08/02/2013 David Johnson, Jr. v. County of Douglas, NE U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 13-1134 U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Colloton and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. In an action to impose municipal liability under Section 1983 after a jail operated by the County failed to provide plaintiff with his anti-seizure medication, plaintiff failed to present evidence of a continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of unconstitutional misconduct; while plaintiff made multiple requests for the medication, all of the requests were within the space of a few hours, and there was no evidence to suggest that policy making officials would have received notice of the incidents and made a deliberate decision to ignore or tacitly authorize denial of the medications.