Short Form -- Monday, 19 Messidor (Cerise)

Second Circuit:

Porter v. Quarantillo -- Affidavit stating affiant's age doesn't qualify for family history hearsay exception.
Kanciper v. Suffolk County SPCA, Inc. et al -- District court erred in dismissing S1983 suit due to claim-splitting, as one action was in state court, and the other in federal court.

Third Circuit:

Interfaith Comm Orgn v. Honeywell Intl Inc -- FRCP Rule 68 as applied to citizen-suits does not violate the Rules Enabling Act; Application to relator is similar to civil rights litigation;  Rule 68 applies to damages/remedy phase as well as liability phase;  No error in departure from forum-rate rule, as there were no area counsel qualified in this particular area of law.

Seventh Circuit:

USA v.   Midwest Generation, LLC -- Claim that deft's lacked of construction permit 10/15 years ago is barred by statute of limitations -- not considered an ongoing violation.
Debra Leveski v.   ITT Educational Services, Inc -- Relator's claims were sufficiently distinct and knowledge sufficiently direct to state a claim.  Sanctions for frivolous lawsuit were in error.
Cincinnati Life Insurance Comp v.   Marjorie Beyrer -- FRCP - statement of claim insufficiently short & plain; Heightened pleading standard for fraud claims not met;
United Food and Commercial Wo v.   Walgreen Company
Robert Wehrle v.   Cincinnati Insurance Company
Patrick J. Ryan v.   USA

Eighth Circuit: (From site)

113490P.pdf   07/08/2013  Watkins Incorporated  v.  Chilkoot Distributing, Inc.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  11-3490
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis    
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Murphy and Benton, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Contracts. For the court's earlier opinion in the case, see 
   Watkins Inc. v. Chilkoot Distrib., Inc., 655 F3d 802 (8th Cir. 2011). The 
   district court did not err in determining that Watkins' reclassification 
   of a distributor known as the Lambert Group from sales associate to 
   manufacturer's representative was not prohibited by either of the 
   contracts between Watkins and Chilkoot and was not a breach of the 
   contracts nor a breach of the implied convenant of good faith and fair 
   dealing; district court did not err in dismissing counterclaims for 
   equitable relief as equitable relief in unavailable under Minnesota law 
   where, as here, the rights of the parties are governed by a valid 
   contract. 
  
126061P.pdf   07/08/2013  J&M Securities, LLC  v.  Patricia Anne Moore
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  12-6061
   U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis    
   [PUBLISHED] [Kressel, Author, with Saladino and Shodeen, Bankruptcy 
   Judges] 
   Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Moore's claim of a $15,000 homestead exemption 
   is allowed under Missouri's homestead exemption statute; J&M's juidical 
   line impaired her exemption and the bankruptcy court properly applied 
   existing law in computing the extent to which the lien impaired the 
   exemption 
  
  

Ninth Circuit:

ALBARO ELIAS TISTA V. ERIC H. HOLDER JR.
ANTONIO HINOJOS V. KOHL'S CORPORATION

Tenth Circuit:

Wood v. Milyard

Federal Circuit:

STEPHEN YONEK v. SHINSEKI