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