Case Summaries
Bankruptcy Law
Insurance Law
Administrative Law
Tax Law
Civil Rights
Bankruptcy Law
[08/27]
Campbell v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc.
In a suit accusing defendant of filing a claim attempting to collect a pre-petition debt in violation of an automatic stay in plaintiffs' Chapter 13 bankruptcy, an interlocutory order granting partial summary judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where: 1) unpaid escrow payments that accumulate pre-petition in the year that a bankruptcy petition is filed, and which the creditor had a right to collect under the loan documents, constitute a "claim" under the Bankruptcy Code; but 2) the filing of a proof of claim including the amounts of these payments does not by itself violate an automatic stay in a bankruptcy proceeding.
[08/26]
In re: Porter
In a bankruptcy case, a ruling excepting from discharge a judgment debt that appellee had obtained against debtor in an employment retaliation case is affirmed where the bankruptcy court correctly bankruptcy court gave collateral estoppel effect to the judgment, and found that the jury in the retaliation case necessarily found that debtor willfully and maliciously injured appellee.
[08/26]
In re: Hamilton
11 U.S.C. section 524(a) makes a state-court judgment void ab initio when entered against a debtor whose dischargeable debts have been discharged.
[08/22]
In the Matter of: Ferrell
Statutory damages are not available for violations of 15 U.S.C. sections 1632(a) and 1638(b)(1), provisions of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).
[08/22]
Henning v. Mainstreet Bank
In bankruptcy proceedings wherein appellant claimed that a mortgage he granted to appellee-bank on his home as collateral for business loans should be released under the terms of their agreement, summary judgment for bank is affirmed where: 1) with regards to the term "paid", the contract is not ambiguous and appellant's definition of the term was contrary to the parties' clear intention that bank be made a secured creditor; and 2) a claim that he should be equitably excused from his obligation as a guarantor is not addressed.
More...
Insurance Law
[08/28]
Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Richards
In an suit to resolve conflicting claims to the proceeds of a life-insurance policy, judgment that defendant, the wife of decedent, conspired in, aided and abetted the murder of decedent and was thus disqualified under state law from receiving life insurance proceeds is affirmed where: 1) defendant, having asserted the privilege against self-incrimination at her deposition, was properly precluded from testifying at trial that she was not involved in the murder; 2) an adverse inference could properly be drawn from defendant's exercise of the privilege against self-incrimination; 3) a witness was properly characterized as an out-of-state resident and thus unavailable for trial; and 4) alleged hearsay in the witness's deposition testimony in fact consisted of admissible co-conspirator statements made in furtherance of the conspiracy to murder decedent.
[08/28]
Northland Casualty Co. v. Meeks
In an insurance claim by estate of plaintiffs in which defendant-insurer's coverage excluded claims by employees, grant of summary judgment to defendant insurance company is affirmed where: 1) there were no genuine issues of material fact; and 2) the district court correctly determined that the deceased was an employee and not a temporary worker as defined by the insurance policy.
[08/27]
Fidelity and Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Star Equip. Corp.
In a dispute arising over a construction contract, enforcement of a settlement agreement and grant of summary judgment are affirmed where: 1) a hand-written agreement contemplated execution of a more formal agreement does not preclude enforcement of the hand-written agreement; 2) the terms of this settlement were clear and unambiguous; 3) there was no error in the district court's order enforcing the Settlement Memorandum of Agreement as a settlement agreement that disposed of all the claims in the case except the indemnification dispute; and 4) Fidelity is entitled to indemnification because defendants failed to present any material facts which would give rise to a factual dispute as to a 'want of good faith' on the part of Fidelity.
[08/26]
Fidelity and Guaranty Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. Jasam Realty Corp.
In an insurance claims case related to a personal injury action, judgment for plaintiff-insurer is vacated and remanded where: 1) the district court's special verdict form permitted the jury to consider incorrect dates on which the veracity of the alleged misrepresentations could be judged; and 2) the court did not correct the error when invited by the jury to clarify the matter
[08/26]
Della Dial v. Healthspring of Alabama, Inc.
In an appeal presenting the question of whether a complaint about conduct regulated by the Medicare Act filed in a state court may be removed to a federal court, denial of plaintiffs' motion to remand is reversed and remanded where: 1) because the plaintiffs' action is not a "civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction," the action is not removable; and 2) the district court would lack subject-matter jurisdiction over their complaint because it is not against the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services for review of an administrative decision.
More...
Administrative Law
[08/28]
Willcockson v. Astrue
Judgment denying plaintiff's disability benefits and supplemental security by the Social Security Administration (SSA) is remanded where it cannot be determined from the written decision whether the ALJ properly reviewed evidence concerning whether plaintiff can do her past relevant work pursuant to her disability.
[08/28]
Bazan v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.
Award of compensation to petitioner under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is reversed where: 1) petitioner was required to make out a prima facie case that the vaccine caused her injury; and 2) the special master was entitled to rely on the government's expert evidence regarding the temporal relationship between administration of the vaccine and the onset of injury in finding that petitioner had not met this burden.
[08/28]
Kholyavskiy v. Mukasey
In an immigration case, petition for review of a BIA order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture is granted in part and denied in part where: 1) petitioner enjoyed a fair hearing before the IJ; 2) remand was necessary for evaluation of evidence of past persecution with reference to the cumulative significance of a series of events alleged by petitioner, and with reference to petitioner's age at the time; 3) denial of asylum based on future persecution was supported by substantial evidence; and 4) a claim for humanitarian asylum should be reconsidered in light of the regulatory standard.
[08/28]
Turner v. Burnside
In inmate-plaintiff's claim against prison officials for cruel and unusual punishment as a result of an incident in which plaintiff was deliberately exposed to electrical shock, dismissal of complaint is vacated and remanded where a prison official's serious threats of substantial retaliation against an inmate for lodging in good faith a grievance make the administrative remedy "unavailable," and thus lift PLRA's requirement to exhaust available administrative remedies.
[08/27]
Local Joint Exec. Bd. of Las Vegas v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
Petition for review of an NLRB order dismissing union's complaints against hotel employers for unilaterally terminating dues-checkoff before bargaining to agreement or impasse is granted where: 1) although the NLRB was responsive to a prior mandate from the circuit court that it adopt a new rule, it did not properly apply the new rule it adopted; and 2) contrary to the NLRB's ruling, the union did not clearly and unmistakably waive any right of employees to claim dues-checkoff after the agreements expired.
More...
Tax Law
[08/28]
Real Estate Equity Strategies, LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv.
In a quiet title action against defendant Internal Revenue Service (IRS), grant of IRS's motion for summary judgment and dismissal of case is affirmed where plaintiff mortgagor lost its ability to challenge the IRS's redemption when it failed to tender sufficient funds in its own attempted redemption.
[08/28]
US v. Stein
Dismissal of indictment of thirteen former partners of the accounting firm KPMG for creating fraudulent tax shelters is affirmed where: 1) the government deprived defendants of their right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment by causing KPMG to place conditions on the advancement of legal fees to defendants, and to cap the fees and ultimately end them; 2) the government failed to cure the Sixth Amendment violation; and 3) no other remedy will return defendants to the status quo ante.
[08/26]
Estate of Lisle v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
In a tax case in which the IRS sought payment of back taxes by decedents' estates, opinion of the Tax Court holding the estates liable for underpaid taxes and fraud penalties is vacated and remanded where: 1) a presumption of correctness applied to the findings of a Special Trial Judge; and 2) in this case there was insufficient contrary evidence produced to overcome those findings.
[08/26]
US v. Leveto
Conviction for federal income tax fraud is affirmed where: 1) defendant had knowingly and voluntarily waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and, once properly waived, this right is no longer absolute; and 2) there was no reversible error in several rulings regarding a warrant and summons.
[08/22]
US v. Easterday
A conviction for willful failure to pay over employee payroll taxes is affirmed where: 1) US v. Poll, 521 F.2d 329 (9th Cir. 1975), is no longer good law; 2) willfulness does not require the government to prove that a defendant had the ability to meet his tax obligations; 3) thus, the district court's refusal to give a Poll instruction to the jury and the instruction it did give on willfulness were proper; and 4) for similar reasons, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit evidence proffered by defendant in order to show how and why he spent money owed to the IRS to pay other business expenses.
More...
Civil Rights
[08/28]
Montes v. Greater Twin Cities Youth Symphonies
In race-and national-origin-based employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant non-profit music organization for youth is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff-former employee failed to establish that defendant's legitimate reasons for firing him were pretextual; 2 )plaintiff failed to satisfy his "ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that he has been the victim of intentional discrimination"; and 3) the evidence taken as a whole is "insufficient to permit a reasonable jury, without resort to speculation, to draw [an] inference" that the board terminated plaintiff's employment because of his race or national origin.
[08/27]
Byrd v. Dressel
In an action brought by a group of homeowners and community organizations seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against a city, employees, and developers who remodel and convert private homes into student residences, a judgment against plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) case precedent does not categorically preclude due process challenges to impermissible governmental action that deprives a person of real property; 2) however, under ordinary Due Process Clause jurisprudence, plaintiff failed to state a claim, notwithstanding it's understandable concerns about the aesthetics and ambiance of the neighborhood; and 3) claims under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and defendant-city's municipal code also failed.
[08/27]
Mendez v. County of San Bernardino
In a suit against a city, county, sheriff's department and various individual defendants under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 arising from the aftermath of an officer-involved shooting that resulted in the death of plaintiff's deaf-mute son, various rulings against plaintiff before and after she prevailed in a jury trial are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) there was no error as to jury instruction on plaintiff's emotional damages; 2) reduction of the punitive damages award was proper as it was excessive as a matter of due process; 3) summary judgment on a state law negligent training claim was proper; 4) an order denying plaintiff all fees and costs required vacatur and a remand for a determination of a reasonable award; 5) a sanctions order had to be vacated where the district court did not make a requisite bad faith finding; and 6) reassignment to a different judge was not warranted.
[08/27]
Kozisek v. Couty of Seward
In an employment discrimination and civil rights case, summary judgment for defendants-county and county board chairman is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case under the Americans with Disability Act; 2) for purposes of a First Amendment claim, plaintiff's speech was not protected, and regardless, he failed to show a connection between his speech and his termination; and 3) a due process claim failed.
[08/27]
Khorrami v. Rolince
In a suit alleging violations of due-process rights by government agents who detained plaintiff while investigating the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, an interlocutory appeal of the denial of a grant of qualified immunity to defendants is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction where the district court's deferral of a ruling on the government's qualified immunity motion was not equivalent to a denial of the motion.
More...
|
