Saturday, March 28, 2015

3/23 -- 3/28

First Circuit:

US v. Munyenyezi 
Home Orthopedics Corp. v. Rodriguez 
US v. Kantengwa 
First State Insurance Company v. National Casualty Co 
US v. Habibi 
US v. Hufstetler 
US v. Molina-Gomez 
Advanced Flexible Circuits v. GE Sensing & Inspection 

Second Circuit:

United States v. Christine Wright-Darrisaw
Sebrena Robinson v. Concentra Health Services,Inc
In re: Advanced Battery Technologies 
Concerned Home Care Providers, Inc. v. Cuomo

Third Circuit:


Michael Torre v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance
EEOC v. Allstate Insurance Co
EEOC v. Allstate Insurance Co
Hernan Gonzalez-Posadas v. Attorney General United States
Agency
Phillip Fantone v. Fred Latini

Fourth Circuit:

Consolidation Coal Company v. Georgia Power Company 
Mark Lee v. Harold Clarke 
Robert Johnson v. American Towers, LLC

Professional Massage Training v. Accreditation Alliance of Career Schools 

Fifth Circuit:


USA v. Juan Martinez-Lugo
Micah Phillips v. City of Dallas
Tammy Bryant v. Texas Dept of Aging and Disab, et
Justin Richardson v. Axion Logistics, L.L.C.
Angus Chemical Company v. Glendora Plantation, Inc
Ronald Hines v. Bud Alldredge, Jr., et al
Donnika Ivy, et al v. Michael Williams
Michael Toney v. Rissie Owens, et al
Auto Parts Mfg MS Inc. v. King Const of Houston,   (II)

Sixth Circuit:


Elizabeth Goodwin v. City of Painesville 
Lexon Insurance Co. v. Aziz Naser 
USA v. Raymond Burch, Jr. 
USA v. Gerald Singer
USA v. Jose Solano-Rosales 
St. Marys Cement Inc. v. EPA 
Environmental Protection Administration
Michael Keller v. Miri Microsystems LLC 
Supplemental Benefit Committee v. Navistar, Inc. 

Seventh Circuit:


Marshall King v. Robert McCarty

USA v. Timmy Reichling

Shaohua He v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.

USA v. Ambrosio Medrano

USA v. Gustavo Buenrostro

Kevin Voigt v. Carolyn Colvin

USA v. Jason White

Joyce Hutchens v. Chicago Board of Education

Lawrence Owens v. Stephen Duncan

Peter Metrou v. M.A. Mortenson Company

Eighth Circuit:


113423P.pdf   03/26/2015  Rodney Washington  v.  American Airlines
  U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  11-3423
  U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - St. Joseph    
  [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Bye and Gruender, Circuit Judges] 
  Civil case - Employment discrimination. There was no evidence that 
  plaintiff's job skills testing or the treatment he received regarding his 
  application for the position of machinist was based on race, and the 
  district court did not err in finding that race was not a motivating 
  factor for the decision to deny plaintiff's application for the promotion. 
 
141356P.pdf   03/26/2015  Selective Insurance Company  v.  Smart Candle, LLC
  U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1356
  U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis    
  [PUBLISHED] [Kelly, Author, with Gruender and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] 
  Civil case - Insurance. Because there are no allegations in the complaint 
  - in either form or substance - regarding misuse of an advertising slogan, 
  the insurer properly concluded it did not have a duty to defend the claim 
  against its insured Smart Candle. 
 
141381P.pdf   03/26/2015  United States  v.  Tamiko Grandison
  U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1381
  U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City    
  [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Loken and Smith, Circuit Judges] 
  Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. A police officer's testimony 
  regarding a government witness's character and reliability was admissible 
  under Rule 608(a) and did not constitute improper "bolstering;" even if 
  admission of evidence during defendant's cross-examination regarding her 
  misrepresentation of her criminal record on applications for federal 
  employment was error, it did not impact the jury's overall opinion of 
  defendant's credibility and was harmless in light of the strong evidence 
  of her guilt; the government concedes it was error for the district court 
  to impose an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2D1.1(b)(12) for running a 
  drug house and this error affected defendant's substantial rights; her 
  sentence is vacated, and the case is remanded for resentencing. 
 
141741P.pdf   03/26/2015  Menard, Inc.  v.  Terry L. Clauff
  U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1741
  U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln    
  [PUBLISHED] [Beam, Author, with Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges] 
  Civil case - Contracts. In an action holding defendant Clauff jointly and 
  severally liable for a contract he signed on behalf of an LLC before it 
  came into existence, the district court did not err in finding, based on 
  the summary judgment record, that Clauff was not authorized to obligate 
  the LLC to a lease assignment because the LLC not yet properly organized 
  under Nebraska law and could not transact business or incur debt that was 
  not incidental to its organization; assuming the parties intended the LLC 
  to receive the assignment of the lease, Clauff cannot escape liability 
  under Nebraska Revised Statute Sec. 21-2635 (repealed 2013) merely because 
  the parties did not intend him to be personally liable; however, the 
  matter should be remanded for further proceedings on the question of 
  whether Nebraska common law and/or Sec. 21-365 preclude Clauff's argument 
  that his liability under the Lease Assignment may be relieved or avoided 
  because the LLC came into existence, adopted the contract and commenced 
  performance. Judge Colloton, dissenting.





133253P.pdf   03/25/2015  United States  v.  Fred Robinson
  U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-3253
  U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis    
  [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Wollman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] 
  Criminal case - Criminal law. Agents could reasonably rely on binding 
  Supreme Court precedents permitting them to attach a tracking device to 
  defendant's vehicle at the time they did so, and the GPS evidence in the 
  case was properly admitted; counts alleging two different schemes for 
  federal programs theft were not misjoined, as the evidence overlapped and 
  evidence from each scheme would have been admissible in the separate trial 
  of the other scheme; further, the court instructed the jury that each 
  offense was a separate or different crime, thereby minimizing any 
  prejudice; Batson claim rejected; instructions on theft concerning 
  programs receiving federal funds were not erroneous, and the court 
  properly rejected defendant's proposed instructions as they did not 
  correctly state the applicable law; evidence was sufficient to support 
  defendant's conviction for accepting wages for work not performed at his 
  parking meter inspection job for the City of St. Louis as he was agent of 
  the City government which received federal funds; below-Guidelines 
  sentence was substantively reasonable; restitution order was not an abuse 
  of discretion. 
 
141567P.pdf   03/25/2015  Jose Torres  v.  Simpatico, Inc.
  U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1567
  U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis    
  [PUBLISHED] Wollman, Author, with Smith and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] 
  Civil case - Arbitration. Arbitration provision in plaintiffs' franchise 
  agreements was enforceable and was not unconscionable because of the costs 
  associated with individual arbitration proceedings; argument that the 
  agreements were unconscionable because they waived punitive or exemplary 
  damages and attorneys' fees went to the merits of the dispute and were for 
  the arbitrator to resolve; agreements were broad enough to permit 
  non-signatory parties, as third party beneficiaries of the agreement, to 
  invoke and enforce the arbitration provision. 
 
141894P.pdf   03/25/2015  E3 Biofuels, LLC  v.  Biothane, LLC
  U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1894
  U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha    
  [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Beam, Circuit 
  Judge] 
  Civil case - Negligence. The district court did not err in finding 
  plaintiff's claims arising out of methane plant explosion were barred by 
  Nebraska's two-year statute of limitations for professional negligence. 

133253P.pdf   03/25/2015  United States  v.  Fred Robinson
  U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-3253
  U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis    
  [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Wollman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] 
  Criminal case - Criminal law. Agents could reasonably rely on binding 
  Supreme Court precedents permitting them to attach a tracking device to 
  defendant's vehicle at the time they did so, and the GPS evidence in the 
  case was properly admitted; counts alleging two different schemes for 
  federal programs theft were not misjoined, as the evidence overlapped and 
  evidence from each scheme would have been admissible in the separate trial 
  of the other scheme; further, the court instructed the jury that each 
  offense was a separate or different crime, thereby minimizing any 
  prejudice; Batson claim rejected; instructions on theft concerning 
  programs receiving federal funds were not erroneous, and the court 
  properly rejected defendant's proposed instructions as they did not 
  correctly state the applicable law; evidence was sufficient to support 
  defendant's conviction for accepting wages for work not performed at his 
  parking meter inspection job for the City of St. Louis as he was agent of 
  the City government which received federal funds; below-Guidelines 
  sentence was substantively reasonable; restitution order was not an abuse 
  of discretion. 
 
141567P.pdf   03/25/2015  Jose Torres  v.  Simpatico, Inc.
  U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1567
  U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis    
  [PUBLISHED] Wollman, Author, with Smith and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] 
  Civil case - Arbitration. Arbitration provision in plaintiffs' franchise 
  agreements was enforceable and was not unconscionable because of the costs 
  associated with individual arbitration proceedings; argument that the 
  agreements were unconscionable because they waived punitive or exemplary 
  damages and attorneys' fees went to the merits of the dispute and were for 
  the arbitrator to resolve; agreements were broad enough to permit 
  non-signatory parties, as third party beneficiaries of the agreement, to 
  invoke and enforce the arbitration provision. 
 
141894P.pdf   03/25/2015  E3 Biofuels, LLC  v.  Biothane, LLC
  U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1894
  U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha    
  [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Beam, Circuit 
  Judge] 
  Civil case - Negligence. The district court did not err in finding 
  plaintiff's claims arising out of methane plant explosion were barred by 
  Nebraska's two-year statute of limitations for professional negligence. 



141623P.pdf   03/24/2015  Henry Lyons  v.  F. Wayne Vaught
  U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1623
  U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City    
  [PUBLISHED] Loken, Author, with Murphy and Melloy, Circuit Judges] 
  Civil case - Civil rights. In action alleging defendants retaliated 
  against plaintiff after he engaged in protected speech concerning 
  preferential treatment for student-athletes at the University of Missouri 
  Kansas City, the district court erred in determining defendants Vaught and 
  Bassa were not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's First 
  Amendment retaliation claims; plaintiff failed to allege that the 
  defendants knew of plaintiff's protected speech when they declined to 
  recommend him for reappointment. 


132729P.pdf   03/23/2015  Andre Porter  v.  Dave Dormire
  U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-2729
  U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City    
  [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Wollman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] 
  Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. Plaintiff failed to exhaust his 
  medical treatment claims through the Department's grievance procedure and 
  the district court did not err in dismissing the action; because dismissal 
  is mandatory, the district court erred in granting the defendants' motion 
  for summary judgment, and the summary judgment order is vacated and the 
  case is remanded for dismissal without prejudice. 



141054P.pdf   03/23/2015  United States  v.  Jermaine Roy
  U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1054
  U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock    
  [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Wollman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] 
  Criminal case - Criminal law. In this prosecution for sex trafficking, the 
  district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to permit 
  defendant to show a video of the victim performing a sex act on him; the 
  district court did not err under Fed. R. Evid. 412(a) in refusing to 
  permit defendant to introduce evidence of he victim's past sexual 
  behavior; nor did exclusion of the evidence violate defendant's Sixth 
  Amendment rights; in any event, defendant's failure to file a timely 
  notice under Rule 412(c)(1)(B) was sufficient grounds to deny the request; 
  claim of Brady violation rejected as defendant had access to the relevant 
  information, which was in a published Arkansas Supreme Court decision, and 
  the government was unaware of the fact that the victim had made a false 
  statement to state police in an unrelated case. 
 
141422P.pdf   03/23/2015  United States  v.  Cesar Gonzalez
  U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1422
  U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport    
  [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Beam, Circuit 
  Judge] 
  Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing.UPS employees were not acting 
  as government agents, and the search they conducted of a package was a 
  private search and did not implicate the Fourth Amendment; temporary 
  seizure of a second package was based on a reasonable suspicion of 
  criminal activity; duration of seizure (three and one-half hours) was not 
  unreasonable; drug dog alert provided an adequate basis for issuance of a 
  search warrant; omission from the warrant application of the fact that the 
  drug dog initially also showed interest in another package was not the 
  kind of reckless disregard of the truth which requires a Franks hearing; 
  no error in denying defendant's request for a two-level reduction under 
  Guidelines Sec. 3E1.1(a) for acceptance of responsibility; district court 
  properly weighed the 3553(a)factors and considered defendant's request for 
  a downward variance; disparity between defendant's sentence and a 
  co-defendant's was justified by defendant's escalating pattern of criminal 
  conduct and the fact that he was on probation when he committed this 
  offense. 
 
141425P.pdf   03/23/2015  Allan Rodgers  v.  Daniel Knight
  U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1425
                         and No:  14-1454
  U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City    
  [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Murphy and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
  Civil case - Civil rights. Prosecutors had absolute immunity for filing a 
  criminal charge against plaintiff Greg Rodgers and the officers were 
  entitled to qualified immunity for recommending an unlawful use of weapons 
  charge; officers were entitled to qualified immunity on charge they 
  violated plaintiff's rights by seeking a search warrant; search was 
  reasonable and officers were entitled to qualified immunity for the scope 
  of the search; officers were entitled to hold the weapons as evidence and 
  returned them within a reasonable time after the close of the criminal 
  proceedings; plaintiffs' Second Amendment claims were correctly dismissed 
  as lawful seizure and retention of weapons does not violate the Second 
  Amendment; officers were entitled to qualified immunity on claim they 
  seized the weapons in retaliation for plaintiff's exercise of his First 
  Amendment rights since they had probable cause to arrest plaintiff and 
  seize his weapons; failure to train and instruct claims against the City 
  of Columbia and Boone County rejected; claim that a senior judge cannot 
  preside over the case is foreclosed by Eighth Circuit precedent, and claim 
  the judge should have recused was raised for the first time on appeal and 
  would not be considered. With respect to plaintiff Franklin's appeal, the 
  officers had probable cause to seek a warrant and arrest him and were 
  entitled to qualified immunity; guns seen in plain view during the 
  execution of a "drug warrant" could be seized as tools of the drug trade 
  and evidence of the offense; weapons could be retained for evidence 
  purposes; First Amendment retaliation claim was properly dismissed as the 
  officers had probable cause to arrest defendant; failure to train claims 
  were properly dismissed. 
 
141664P.pdf   03/23/2015  Sherrita Harris  v.  Hartford Fire Insurance Co.
  U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1664
  U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City    
  [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Wollman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] 
  Civil case. In an action on a statutorily-required bond, the district 
  court erred in determining the case was governed by Missouri's three-year 
  statute of limitations for an action upon a statute for a penalty or 
  forfeiture; the action was governed by the ten-year statute of limitations 
  for an action upon any writing for the payment of money or property (MO. 
  Rev. Stat. Sec. 516.110(1) RSMO 2000). 
 
141669P.pdf   03/23/2015  United States  v.  Acie Evans
  U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1669
  U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City    
  [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Bye and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
  Criminal case - Criminal law. Police officers' decision to impound 
  defendant's vehicle was based on department policy regarding towing; 
  district court's determination that the manager of the apartment complex 
  where the vehicle was parked had asked officers to remove the vehicle was 
  not clearly erroneous; district court did not err in determining the 
  officers did not have an improper investigatory motive for the search of 
  the vehicle. 
 
141787P.pdf   03/23/2015  United States  v.  Mark Brewer
  U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1787
  U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha    
  [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges] 
  Forfeitures. The government made reasonable attempts to notify Brewer of 
  the forfeiture proceedings by mailed notices and publication; the evidence 
  established Brewer was well aware of the seizure and could have filed a 
  timely claim; government proved a substantial connection between the 
  seized funds and drug activity, and the court did not err in forfeiting 
  the cash; Brewer did not meet his burden of proving innocent ownership; 
  seizure of the cash was not an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. 
 
141928P.pdf   03/23/2015  United States  v.  Elfred William Petruk
  U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1928
  U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul    
  [PUBLISHED] [Bright, Author, with Loken and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
  Criminal case - Criminal law. The evidence was not sufficient to establish 
  that defendant committed the offense of carjacking as the initial theft of 
  the truck was accomplished when the truck was unoccupied and his actions 
  in attacking someone who followed him and attempted to recover the truck 
  amounted to retaining rather than acquiring control of the stolen truck; 
  no rational trier of fact could conclude that in attempting to secure a 
  false statement in December, 2012 that defendant contemplated a 
  particular, foreseeable "official proceeding" as defined by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 
  1515(a)(1)(A), and his conviction for obstructing an official proceeding 
  under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512(c)(2) is vacated; however, defendant's efforts 
  to obtain a false statements after the initiation of this federal 
  prosecution did amount to a violation of 1512(c)(2), and this conviction 
  is affirmed. Remanded for resentencing. 




133265P.pdf   03/20/2015  Karl Adams  v.  ActionLink
  U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-3265
                         and No:  13-3380
  U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock    
  [PUBLISHED] [Melloy, Author, with Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] 
  Civil case - Fair Labor Standards Act. The district court did not err in 
  determining that certain of defendant's employees were non-exempt under 
  the Fair Labor Standards Act as they performed non-exempt promotional work 
  for the company to stimulate sales that would be made by someone else and 
  were not, themselves, outside salesman for FLSA purposes; nor were they 
  administrative employees as they did not meet the tests for administrative 
  employees established in 29 C.F.R. Sec. 541.200; the district court erred 
  in determining that one group of the employee plaintiffs had waived their 
  right to pursue additional claims against defendant by cashing proposed 
  settlement checks; the court joins other courts which have held that the 
  plain language of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(c) requires an agreement by the 
  employee to accept a certain amount of back wages and requires the 
  employer to pay those wages; this involves more than simply tendering a 
  check and having the employee cash it, as an agreement must exist 
  independently of the payment; here, the language on the checks was 
  insufficient as a matter of law to constitute proper notice to the 
  employees and did not serve as a release of their rights. 
 
141595P.pdf   03/20/2015  Tri-National, Inc.  v.  Canal Insurance Company
  U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1595
  U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau    
  [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
  Civil case - Motor Carrier Act of 1980. Tri-National held a default 
  judgment against Canal's insured and was the real party in interest under 
  Missouri law; Alabama court did not render a final judgment on the merits 
  of Tri-National's present claim on the MCS-90 endorsement issue since that 
  claim was voluntarily dismissed, and the present claim was not barred by 
  res judicata; Tri-National could assert its rights as a member of the 
  general public under the MCS-90 endorsement and that fact that its insurer 
  had satisfied its claim did not preclude this action or absolve defendant 
  of its obligations under the endorsement. 




132918P.pdf   03/19/2015  Sletten & Brettin Orthodontics  v.  Continental Casualty Company
  U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-2918
  U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis    
  [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Murphy and Smith, Circuit Judges] 
  Civil case - Insurance. The policy in question excluded coverage for 
  intent-to-injure acts; since the complaint against the insured alleged 
  defamation with intent to injure,the policy did not provide coverage and 
  the insurer did not have a duty to defend the suit. 




132918P.pdf   03/19/2015  Sletten & Brettin Orthodontics  v.  Continental Casualty Company
  U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-2918
  U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis    
  [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Murphy and Smith, Circuit Judges] 
  Civil case - Insurance. The policy in question excluded coverage for 
  intent-to-injure acts; since the complaint against the insured alleged 
  defamation with intent to injure,the policy did not provide coverage and 
  the insurer did not have a duty to defend the suit. 

Ninth Circuit:




ROBERTO MALDONADO V. ERIC HOLDER, JR.
USA V. MARIA MOE
USA V. LAWRENCE SHAW
ADAM RICHARDS V. ED PRIETO
EDWARD PERUTA V. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
TEOFILO MEDINA, JR. V. KEVIN CHAPPELL
CROW TRIBAL HOUSING AUTHORITY V. USHUD
TEOFILO MEDINA, JR. V. KEVIN CHAPPELL
USA V. MICHAEL DREYER
USA V. HEIDI HAISCHER
USA V. AARON HYMAS
CHRIS KOHLER V. BED BATH & BEYOND OF CALIF.
HECTOR NAVARRO V. ENCINO MOTORCARS
USA V. MERLIN MARCIA-ACOSTA
MTB ENTERPRISES V. ADC VENTURE 
MARK MUNNS V. JOHN F. KERRY
BRUCE LISKER V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES
CHRIS KOHLER V. EDDIE BAUER

Tenth:

Certain Underwriters v. Bartle
Filed On:March 27, 2015
Docket #: 13-3310
United States District Court for the District of Kansas - Kansas City 
Type: Published Opinion

(The Tenth makes it hard to identify past published opinions -- see their site.)

Rest TK

MB





Compiled by D.E. Frydrychowski, who is, not incidentally, not giving you legal advice.

Category tags above are sporadically maintained Do not rely. Do not rely. Do not rely.

Author's SSRN page here.