• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Stop wasting time looking for files and revisions. Connect your Gmail, DriveDropbox, and Slack accounts and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio will automatically organize all your file attachments. Learn more and claim your free account.


Civil Procedure Cases 6-23-06

Page history last edited by PBworks 14 years, 4 months ago

* Woodford v. Ngo

* Deegan Patterson v. U.S.

* Muniz v. Rovira-Martino

* Baena v. KPMG LLP

* Sterling Consulting Corp. v. IRS

* McDonough v. City of Quincy

* Cruz v. Attorney Gen. of the US

* Obale v. Attorney Gen. of the US

* Kumarasamy v. Attorney Gen. of the US

* Francis v. Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc.

* Reese v. Livingston

* McCormick v. Braverman

* Davet v. City of Cleveland

* Max Arnold & Sons, LLC v. W.L. Hailey & Co., Inc.

* Maroules v. Jumbo, Inc.

* Porco v. Trs. of Indiana Univ.

* Roberts v. BJC Health Sys.

* Lankford v. Nat'l Council on Indep. Living

* Bailey v. Dep't of Elementary & Secondary Educ.

* Gorospe v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

* Brittain v. Hansen

* In re: Qwest Communications Int'l Inc.

* Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne

* Bear v. Patton

* Bell v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Jefferson County

* Arthur v. Allen

* Gemmy Indus. Corp. v. Chrisha Creations Ltd.

* Indep. Energy Producers Ass'n v. McPherson

* Chambers v. Miller

* Turtle Ridge Media Group v. Pacific Bell Directory

* Butler v. Vons Cos.

* Safeco v. Superior Ct. (Century Sur. Co.)

U.S. Supreme Court


Woodford v. Ngo (06/22/06 - No. 05–416)

The Prison Litigation Reform Act's (PLRA) exhaustion requirement requires proper exhaustion of administrative remedies.



U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals


Deegan Patterson v. U.S. (06/22/06 - No. 05-2093)

Dismissal of claim against the FBI under the Federal Tort Claims Act as untimely is affirmed where: 1) the government need only prove constructive knowledge of the injury; 2) plaintiff did not show that a mental incapacity prevented her from filing a timely complaint; and 3) relation back to a previous complaint would be futile since the first complaint was also untimely.



Muniz v. Rovira-Martino (06/22/06 - No. 05-2618)

Denial of motion to set aside judgment in a medical malpractice case is affirmed where the court cannot exercise de novo review of the district court's account of the evidence since the defendant did not show that there was only one possible interpretation of the evidence.



Baena v. KPMG LLP (06/22/06 - No. 05-2868)

Dismissal of suit against an accounting firm that failed to notify corporate directors of irregularities in accounting is affirmed where the suit was barred by the in pari delicto doctrine since the wrongful actions of the corporate officers could be imputed to the company as a whole.



Sterling Consulting Corp. v. IRS (06/23/06 - No. 03-1809)

Sanctions order against the IRS is vacated where the order was reviewable and the behavior that triggered the sanctions was not arguably improper.



McDonough v. City of Quincy (06/23/06 - No. 04-1902)

Jury decision against municipality for retaliating against a police officer is affirmed where: 1) the suit was not barred by claim preclusion; 2) there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict; 3) there was no abuse of discretion in evidentiary determinations or jury instructions; and 4) damages awarded were not excessive. The matter is remanded for a determination concerning a trial for punitive damages, however.



U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals


Cruz v. Attorney Gen. of the US (06/21/06 - No. 05-2764)

A petition for review from a denial of petitioner's motion to reopen his immigration proceedings is granted and the matter remanded for further proceedings where the BIA should not have ignored the question of whether petitioner was still removable for committing a crime involving moral turpitude by virtue of his vacated conviction.



Obale v. Attorney Gen. of the US (06/22/06 - No. 05-1109)

If a Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) grant of voluntary departure is set forth as part of a "final order" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. section 1252, the court of appeals has jurisdiction to grant a stay of that period.



Kumarasamy v. Attorney Gen. of the US (06/23/06 - No. 05-2323)

In the context of immigration-related habeas claims, petitioners who have already been removed from the country do not satisfy the "in custody" requirement for habeas corpus jurisdiction.



U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals


Francis v. Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc. (06/22/06 - No. 05-1523)

Summary judgment in favor of defendant, in case alleging discrimination, wrongful termination, and retaliation in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, is affirmed as the undisputed evidence demonstrates that defendant did not improperly deny plaintiff reemployment rights or a benefit of employment, and defendant dismissed plaintiff for cause, and did not retaliate against her in violation of USERRA.



U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals


Reese v. Livingston (06/20/06 - No. 06-70026)

An inmate's request for a stay of his execution brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 challenging the method of execution by injection as administered in Texas as cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment is denied as untimely.



U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals


McCormick v. Braverman (06/20/06 - No. 04-1708)

Dismissal of plaintiffs' cases against defendants involving their allegedly illegal interference with her ownership of property is affirmed where the district court properly ruled that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred jurisdiction over certain claims, and plaintiff was collaterally estopped from raising all her remaining claims. Plaintiff also failed to state a claim against state supreme court justices.



Davet v. City of Cleveland (06/22/06 - No. 05-3832)

Summary judgment for defendants in a suit alleging that a partial demolition of plaintiff's building violated the Takings, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution is affirmed over claims that the district court erred in: 1) granting the city summary judgment on the claims; 2) exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the city’s counterclaim; and 3) granting the city’s motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim, even if it had jurisdiction on it.



Max Arnold & Sons, LLC v. W.L. Hailey & Co., Inc. (06/22/06 - No. 05-5893)

In a dispute involving an alleged breach of a warranty agreement between the parties, grant of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is reversed where plaintiff failed to adequately prove a breach of the agreement.



U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals


Maroules v. Jumbo, Inc. (06/20/06 - No. 04-3248)

In a personal injury case argued under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where plaintiff failed to show through common sense or expert testimony that the injury was one that would not ordinarily occur in the absence of proper care on the part of those controlling the instrumentality.



Porco v. Trs. of Indiana Univ. (06/22/06 - No. 05-1670)

Suit challenging the constitutionality of a state university's residency classification scheme is dismissed where the disbursement of disputed funds to the defendants rendered the case moot since it made the remaining claim one for money damages. The university is part of the state and the Eleventh Amendment protects the defendants from satisfying a money judgment.



U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals


Roberts v. BJC Health Sys. (06/21/06 - No. 05-2572)

28 U.S.C. section 1447(d) bars appellate review of remand orders based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.



Lankford v. Nat'l Council on Indep. Living (06/22/06 - No. 05-3587)

Denial of a preliminary injunction to prohibit enforcement of state regulations curtailing the provision of durable medical equipment to most categorically needy Medicaid recipients is vacated and remanded for further proceedings where the district court erred in finding that plaintiffs did not have a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the challenged regulations were pre-empted by Medicaid's reasonable-standards requirement.



Bailey v. Dep't of Elementary & Secondary Educ. (06/23/06 - No. 05-2448)

Judgment as a matter of law for defendant-employer, an agency, in a First Amendment retaliation case is affirmed where: 1) there was no error regarding jury instructions; 2) the district court correctly concluded plaintiff's statements during a meeting in his supervisor's office did not deserve First Amendment protection; 3) the district court correctly concluded a letter by plaintiff did not touch upon a matter of public concern; and 4) even if plaintiff's speech did touch upon a matter of public concern, the Pickering balancing test weighed in favor of the agency.



U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals


Gorospe v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (06/21/06 - No. 04-73277)

Congress did not authorize the Tax Court to hear appeals of the IRS Office of Appeals's determinations in trust fund recovery penalty cases. The Tax Court lacks jurisdiction over collection due process (CDP) appeals where it would lack jurisdiction over the underlying tax liability. (Amended opinion)



Brittain v. Hansen (06/22/06 - No. 03-57012)

Non-custodial parents with court-ordered visitation rights have a liberty interest in the companionship, care, custody, and management of their children.



U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals


In re: Qwest Communications Int'l Inc. (06/20/06 - No. 06-1070)

A petition for writ of mandamus in a federal securities action challenging an order compelling production of certain documents is denied where the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply a rule of "selective waiver," which would allow production of attorney-client privileged and work-product documents to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) without waiver of further protection for those materials.



Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne (06/20/06 - No. 03-8060)

In a dispute involving defendant-city's denial of a license for a church to operate a daycare in a residential zone, a judgment in favor of the city is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) dismissal of the church's constitutional claims; 2) jury instructions on a Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act claim; 3) admissibility of certain evidence; and 4) a party's intervention and the issue of restrictive covenants.



Bear v. Patton (06/20/06 - No. 05-3183)

For purposes of determining a state-court judgment's finality in the context of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, if a lower state court issues a judgment and the losing party allows the time for appeal to expire, then the state proceedings have ended.



Bell v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Jefferson County (06/20/06 - No. 05-3224)

Orders that resulted in a limited award of attorney's fees to plaintiff in a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 case arising from plaintiff's termination by defendant-county are affirmed where the court properly exercised its discretion as to one award of reduced fees which reflected the limited success of plaintiff's claims, and properly denied plaintiff's motion to reconsider since plaintiff entered into a private settlement without any judicial involvement and, as such, was not a prevailing party.



U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals


Arthur v. Allen (06/21/06 - No. 03-14304)

Denial of habeas petition challenging capital murder conviction and death sentence is affirmed over claims that: 1) the court should consider the merits of the petition claiming actual innocence; 2) petitioner is entitled to discovery and a hearing to further develop his actual innocence claim; 3) statutory tolling should be applied to limitations governing petitioner's claims; and 4) equitable tolling should be applied to limitations governing petitioner's claims.



U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit


Gemmy Indus. Corp. v. Chrisha Creations Ltd. (06/22/06 - No. 05-1110)

Summary judgment for defendant, pursuant to a finding that a patent involving a holiday decoration was invalid on the ground that the invention was on sale more than one year before the filing of the patent, is vacated where the on-sale issue could not be decided adversely to plaintiff on summary judgment since disputed material facts, viewed favorably to plaintiff, did not support the judgment.



Supreme Court of California


Indep. Energy Producers Ass'n v. McPherson (06/19/06 - No. S135819)

Article XII, section 5, of the California Constitution does not preclude the people, through their exercise of the initiative process, from conferring additional powers or authority upon the California Public Utilities Commission.




California Appellate Districts


Chambers v. Miller (06/20/06 - No. G035400)

Denial of special motion to strike brought under the anti-SLAPP statute and denial of award of attorney fees to defendants is affirmed where defendants filed their special motion to strike after plaintiff dismissed her claims against them.




Turtle Ridge Media Group v. Pacific Bell Directory (06/21/06 - No. B180324)

Denial of petition to compel arbitration is reversed as, under applicable federal arbitration law, a nonsignatory may compel a signatory to arbitrate its claims when the signatory's claims are based upon and intertwined with a contract containing an arbitration agreement.




Butler v. Vons Cos. (06/22/06 - No. B179815)

Summary judgment in favor of defendant on the ground that a release agreement between the parties, which resolved an altercation involving plaintiff and a coemployee unrelated to, and entered into two years prior to commencement of, this action, barred the action, is reversed as it is a question of fact whether defendant intended to release the employment discrimination claim.




Safeco v. Superior Ct. (Century Sur. Co.) (06/22/06 - No. B189637)

In an action for equitable contribution by a settling insurer against a nonparticipating insurer, the settling insurer has met its burden of proof when it makes a prima facie showing of coverage under the nonparticipating insurer's policy, the same showing of potential coverage necessary to trigger the nonparticipating insurer's duty to defend, and that the burden of proof then shifts to the recalcitrant insurer to prove the absence of actual coverage.



Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.