Short Form: Rest of Tuesday

Seventh:

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:

IN THE MATTER OF: FITNESS HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL
HORACE FRIEND V. ERIC HOLDER, JR.
USA V. LAWRENCE MICHAEL STANFILL EL

Tenth:

Rawlins v. State of Kansas
Karki v. Holder

DC:
NetCoalition v. SEC
Quantum Entertainment Limited v. Department of the Interior