Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the disclaimer .

Your query tort or negligence returned 11218 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

MOTORCITY OF JACKSONVILLE V. SOUTHEAST BANK

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Motorcity of Jacksonville v. Southeast orally assured Motorcity that its personnel were experienced with floor plan financing and that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-10.gif" ALT="1000"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may96/93-4634.ma2.html">MOTORCITY OF JACKSONVILLE V. SOUTHEAST BANK </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Motorcity of Jacksonville v. Southeast orally assured Motorcity that its personnel were experienced with floor plan financing and that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="990"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CF7CCDB0A79D0EF3882573330054DD2A/$file/0515189.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: These are consolidated appeals in two diversity actions brought under Nevada law. Where the meaning is not clear from the context. The dealership repays GMAC the portion of the loan attributable to an individual vehicle when that vehicle is sold or leased. GMAC enters into a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="951"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1581.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> A firm that was both his employer and the charterer of the barge. A K is immune from tort actions brought by covered employees like Morehead. As the bare boat charterer of the barge on which Morehead was injured. A K is deemed also to be the statutory vessel owner. It was in this capacity that A K was sued. 2 2 The case raises difficult questions of first impression in this circuit as to the liability of a so called dual capacity employer under the LHWCA. Or rather was in its capacity as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="927"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021494.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Opinion filed 8/1/03 is vacated Filed: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02 1494 (CA 00 582 3) August 18. Line 2 of section III the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="926"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1998/98a1999a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> * Circuit Judges ORDER AMENDING SLIP OPINION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the slip opinion in the above case. 1998 *Judge Seitz heard argument in this matter but was unable to clear the opinion. 2 CORRECTED REPRINT Filed November 12. D.C. 20006 *Judge Seitz heard argument in this matter but was unable to clear the opinion. 2 GARY R. We will affirm the District Court's decertification order and its grant of summary judgment. 6 I. Ciaran McNally are Pennsylvania residents who began smoking cigarettes before the age of 15 and have smoked for many years. The defendants are The American Tobacco Company. Inc. have been dismissed from this action without prejudice. Industries p.l.c. was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction by order of the District Court dated June 21. Finding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="926"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1998/98a1999p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> D.C. 20006 *Judge Seitz heard argument in this matter but was unable to clear the opinion. 2 GARY R. We will affirm the District Court's decertification order and its grant of summary judgment. 6 I. Ciaran McNally are Pennsylvania residents who began smoking cigarettes before the age of 15 and have smoked for many years. The defendants are The American Tobacco Company. Inc. have been dismissed from this action without prejudice. Industries p.l.c. was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction by order of the District Court dated June 21. Finding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="925"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315321.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Thus is strictly liable for crew member assaults on passengers. The jury trial focused on whether the plaintiff consented or was sexually battered by the crew member. The district court sua sponte raised an entirely new issue regarding which of the four defendants actually employed the errant crew member and whether that employer was a common carrier. Concluding that the plaintiff failed to prove any single defendant was both a common carrier and the employer of the crew member Honorable Richard Mills. Sitting by designation. 2 * and therefore that no defendant was liable for the crew member's assault. A cruise line is strictly liable for crew member assaults on passengers during the cruise. Inc. is the operator of the M/V ZENITH. Zenith Shipping Corporation is the owner of the vessel. Contending that they are not liable for Aydin's intentional misconduct. Defendants argued that they are liable (1) only for their own breach of reasonable care under the circumstances and (2) only for their employees' intentional conduct while acting within the scope of their employment and in furtherance of the defendants' business purposes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="923"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2002/00-13811.opn.html">NAT'L R.R. PASSENGER CORP. V. ROUNTREE TRANSP. AND RIGGING, INC.(3/26/2002, NO. 00-13811) </A> Circuit Judge: </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="923"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2002/00-13811.opn.html">NAT'L R.R. PASSENGER CORP. V. ROUNTREE TRANSP. AND RIGGING, INC.(3/26/2002, NO. 00-13811) </A> Circuit Judge: </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="923"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013811.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: These consolidated appeals arise from the district court's final judgment resolving a series of cases that were filed after a passenger train of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="905"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1995/95a1086p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> As such terms are defined and determined under applicable State law. Section 1821(k) was passed by Congress in response to the enactment by various states. Concluding that the enactment of § 1821(k) supplanted any available federal common law actions for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.[fn1] Courts of appeals that have considered these issues have concluded that § 1821(k) does not preempt state law. We will affirm the district court's order in the United Savings action and reverse the court's order in the City Federal action. (7) failing to require and verify that necessary permits and approvals were obtained before funding the loans. At issue in these appeals is whether Congress. As we have stated. The question of the interpretation of § 1821(k) is one of first impression in this circuit. Our review of the construction of federal statutes is plenary. A. The Plain Meaning of the Statute </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="898"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044335p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This is a negligence suit under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="889"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982368.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: The sole issue on appeal is whether we should construe or extend the United States Supreme Court's decision in Moragne v. He was actually employed by Tidewater Temps but worked on behalf of Mid Atlantic Coastings (MidAtlantic). Which was used to load sand for sandblasting. The crane operator's negligence and Norfolk's use of an inadequate communication signaling system were the reasons for her son's death. The Court noted that at common law there was no civil action for an injury that resulted in death and that English maritime law also had no cause of action for wrongful death on the high seas. The Court concluded that because it is now established that in the courts of the United States no action at law can be maintained for [wrongful death] in the absence of a statute giving the right. We are forced to the conclusion that no such action will lie in the courts of the United States under the general maritime law. Which originally was an obscure and rarely used cause of action for which many state wrongful death statutes did not account. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="887"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991018.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. I. UHP is a company that cleans tanks and holds for ocean vessels with ultra high pressure water jets. Was moored at Cargill South Terminal in Chesapeake. The pump and hoses used to operate the ballast tank were owned by UHP. Chisholm was aboard the ULTRAMAX as a first assistant engineer. As UHP employees were preparing to begin cleaning one of the ballast tanks. The loose hose veered and struck Chisholm who was standing approximately 10 to 15 feet away from the ballast tank. This amount was $200. This exact amount was then tendered by UHP to Sealift as indemnity on or about December 11. The district court concluded that Chisholm did not have a right to a jury trial but impaneled a jury anyway to function as an advisory body.1 See id. at 929 30. The admiralty claim pro 1 The fact that the district court ruled that Chisholm did not have a right to a jury because he presented no viable negligence claim rebuts the dissent's assertion that UHP's liability was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="885"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/98-6135.htm">98-6135 -- WOOLARD V. JLG INDUSTRIES INC. -- 04/25/2000 </A> Circuit Judge. <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="876"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021494A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We now conclude that the government's waiver of sovereign immunity reflected in the Suits in Admiralty Act is subject to an implied exception similar to the discretionary function exception contained within the Federal Tort Claims Act. I. The relevant facts are set out in detail in the panel's opinion. We will only briefly recount them here. The plaintiffs were riding two jet skis on the Ohio River in the vicinity of the Robert C. The plaintiffs were injured when they went over the gates and dropped approximately twenty five feet to the water below. There were several warning signs on the upstream side of the dam. Their evidence indicated that the signs were difficult to see from the river. Alleging that the government had a duty to warn about the dangers of the dam and that the signs in place were inadequate to satisfy this duty. Arguing that it was protected by an implied discretionary function exception to the SIAA's waiver of sovereign immunity. The government also moved for summary judgment on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims on the grounds that it had no duty to warn about the dam and that the warnings it provided were. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="874"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/022945p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is whether Indiana's or Pennsylvania's choice of law rules govern a suit against the United States by the estates of passengers killed in the crash of a small private aircraft. The plane was hangared in Pennsylvania. The corporation that owned it was incorporated in Pennsylvania. D.C. of a chart incorrectly showing that a long inactive instrument landing approach at the airport was active. The District Court determined that because acts of negligence were committed in both Indiana and the District of Columbia ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="851"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3D534390583B882F88256C380004FE18/$file/0056603.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Total Myanmar was appointed Operator of the Gas Production Joint Venture and the Gas Transportation Company. Total Myanmar was responsible. For </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="842"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1999/981762.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> This is an appeal of the District Court's dismissal under Fed. These rulings are now challenged on cross appeal. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court on all issues. The cases were consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. 000 individual plaintiffs claim to have suffered physical injuries caused by defective orthopedic bone screw devices affixed to the pedicles of their spines during spinal fusion surgery. Which are intended to stabilize the spine and achieve fusion of the vertebrae. Consist of rods or plates that are screwed into the vertical axis of the lumbar spine. Plaintiffs have undergone surgery to have the devices removed. There are two types of omni actions. 7 The Plaintiffs' Legal Committee ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="833"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/01-1053a.htm">01-1053 -- GONZALES V. CITY OF CASTLE ROCK -- 10/15/2002 </A> Gonzales alleged that plaintiffs' substantive and procedural due process rights were violated when defendant police officers failed to enforce a restraining order against her estranged husband. Gonzales was seeking enforcement of the order. The order was entered into the central registry of restraining orders. The order was served on Mr. Gonzales was excluded from the family home and was prohibited from molesting or disturbing the peace of Ms. Simon Gonzales abducted the three girls while they were playing outside their house. Gonzales discovered the children were gone. Officers Brink and Ruisi were sent to the Gonzales home. The Officers </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="833"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1053.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> The mandate is issued forthwith. Gonzales alleged that plaintiffs' substantive and procedural due process rights were violated when defendant police officers failed to enforce a restraining order against her estranged husband. Gonzales was seeking enforcement of the order. The order was entered into the central registry of restraining orders. The order was served on Mr. Gonzales was excluded from the family home and was prohibited from molesting or disturbing the peace of Ms. Simon Gonzales abducted the three girls while they were playing outside their house. Gonzales discovered the children were gone. Officers Brink and Ruisi were sent to the Gonzales home. The Officers </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="817"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D64727E1F87230A488256DE4000124DC/$file/0256197.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> A United States Postal worker who was delivering mail in Chatsworth. Ileto's sole surviving dependent parent and three of the children who were shot at the JCC filed a complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court against multiple defendants involved in the manufacture. The case was removed to federal district court. All motions were granted. Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their public nuisance and state law negligence claims.1 Because the plaintiffs have stated a cognizable claim under California tort law for negligence and public nuisance against 1 When we refer to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="811"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTY2NzktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-6679-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> That defendant appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The action was brought against Crystal. Crystal was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. GlobalNet was in the business of providing on line news and financial information to private investors in Europe and the United States and to on line trading facilities. GlobalNet is a Delaware company that had an office in Boca Raton. Crystal is a commercial insurance broker incorporated. The primary D&O policy was issued by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh. An excess D&O policy was issued by Lloyd's of London. A second excess D&O policy was issued by Federal Insurance Company. Although Crystal never was a party to the premium financing agreement (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="803"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314784.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was incarcerated at the Monroe County Detention Center ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="802"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0948p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Claimants are the widow and son of a deceased diver and dockbuilder. Which held that the decedent's employer was not required to pay benefits under the Longshore Harbor Workers Compensation Act. The employer has filed a protective cross appeal solely to preserve its right to have this court examine the employment status of the decedent in the event that we reverse the Board on the release and credit issues. We will affirm the order of the Board that the decedent was a harbor worker. We hold that only when these two sections are applied together do they provide a credit to the employer where the apportionment of funds between prior settled claims is unknown. We will affirm the order of the Board. We will affirm its determination that the notice provision of § 933(g)(2) was satisfied by virtue of the employer's participation in the tort settlement. We will reverse the order of the Board that the claimants are not entitled to any benefits under the LHWCA and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="800"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9300D61A9D3C173088256F0900552C3D/$file/0217317.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: The issue presented by this case is whether. A company which contracted to build a house is covered under its commercial general liability policy against claims brought against the company by the dissatisfied homeowners. Construction was completed. The gravamen of the homeowners' allegations was that Oceanic improperly designed and/or constructed the foundation of the residence causing earth movement and resulting in physical and structural damage to both the residence and the retaining walls on the property. At the time the counterclaim was filed. Oceanic was the named insured under a standard form commercial general liability ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B9AC6A6B95974BBD88256DF100004A7E/$file/0135863.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is amended as follows: At page 1132. Which came down after briefing was completed in this case. There is no conflict. Frank held that an employee's tort claims against his employing airline were expressly preempted. Frank is distinguishable because the claims were against the airline that employed the plaintiff. The inconsistency in Frank between the federal regulatory scheme and the tort remedy was clear. It is not clear from Frank how the Fifth Circuit would decide a claim such as this one against third party tortfeasors. Judges Kleinfeld and McKeown have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. The test was negligently performed. While she was flying from Japan to Portland. Ishikawa was told she would be required to take a random drug test when the plane landed. There have to be safeguards to assure the accuracy of urine tests. One method of testing for a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="792"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec94/93-4634.opa.html">MOTORCITY OF JACKSONVILLE, LTD. V. SOUTHEAST BANK </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Motorcity of Jacksonville. Southeast assured Motorcity that its personnel were experienced with floor plan financing and that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="792"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec94/93-4634.opa.html">MOTORCITY OF JACKSONVILLE, LTD. V. SOUTHEAST BANK </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Motorcity of Jacksonville. Southeast assured Motorcity that its personnel were experienced with floor plan financing and that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="786"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053135np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Essex Insurance Company appeals the District Court's grant of summary judgment in this declaratory judgment action that Essex filed to determine its obligations under an insurance policy it had issued to RMJC (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="785"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/024582p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Class members were entitled to opt out at various stages. Those who chose to opt out initially were freed to pursue their remedies elsewhere. Those who did not opt out at the beginning were afforded opportunities to opt out </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="782"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/024597p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Based on its determination that Horn's claims against TCI are preempted by the express preemption provision in the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="781"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199915021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is evidenced by the division of the Alabama Supreme Court that is reflected in a multitude of separate concurring and dissenting opinions and statements. We are grateful to the Alabama Supreme Court for the valuable guidance that it has provided us both in the decision it issued in this case and also in the other decision it released on the same day in a similar tobacco case where related state law issues had been certified by another panel of this Court. A brief background statement and discussion of some general matters will be helpful. I. BACKGROUND Because we are reviewing a dismissal pursuant to Fed. Those alleged facts are that Carolyn Watts Spain started smoking cigarettes as a teenager in 1962. She became addicted to nicotine early on and was unaware at the time that she was becoming addicted. Smoking was the proximate cause of her lung cancer. Which was diagnosed on August 15. This means that for a period of two years after her death Spain may bring whatever claims his wife could have brought on the date of her death. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="781"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july95/93-2314.man.html">PULTE HOME CORP. V. OSMOSE WOOD PRESERVING </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Pulte Home Corp. v. A manufacturer of chemicals that were applied to plywood Pulte used in constructing the roofs of 1876 townhouses. After the townhouses were sold. A jury found that Pulte's loss from replacing the plywood was caused by Osmose's (1) misrepresentation that the plywood would not deteriorate and (2) negligence in failing to warn Pulte that the plywood would deteriorate. Finding that Osmose's misrepresentation was made with fraudulent intent to induce Pulte to purchase Osmose treated plywood. The court acted on the theory that Pulte's tort claims were barred by the economic loss rule. Which are sold at various prices. The multi family townhouses consist of a row of single family housing units that are joined by a common wall and. Osmose was only one of several manufacturers of chemicals used to create fire retardant treated ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="781"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july95/93-2314.man.html">PULTE HOME CORP. V. OSMOSE WOOD PRESERVING </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Pulte Home Corp. v. A manufacturer of chemicals that were applied to plywood Pulte used in constructing the roofs of 1876 townhouses. After the townhouses were sold. A jury found that Pulte's loss from replacing the plywood was caused by Osmose's (1) misrepresentation that the plywood would not deteriorate and (2) negligence in failing to warn Pulte that the plywood would deteriorate. Finding that Osmose's misrepresentation was made with fraudulent intent to induce Pulte to purchase Osmose treated plywood. The court acted on the theory that Pulte's tort claims were barred by the economic loss rule. Which are sold at various prices. The multi family townhouses consist of a row of single family housing units that are joined by a common wall and. Osmose was only one of several manufacturers of chemicals used to create fire retardant treated ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="777"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2081.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Hedges was on brief. Were on brief. The array did not include pictures of either the appellants or the men who ultimately were determined to be the actual culprits. The reports regarding the eyewitness who had identified only Wilwerding were also inconsistent. He was required to place them in the case file. The court also found it doubtful that Craft's 302 reports were in the case file when the FBI turned it over to the United States Attorney. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="774"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/01-2252.htm">01-2252 -- HACEESA V. U.S. -- 10/24/2002 </A> Haceesa was sent home that night. He was dead. Only after his death was Haceesa's disease diagnosed correctly: he died of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome. Haceesa was a Navajo Indian. The hospital where he was first seen on April 25 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="773"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTczMDlfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7309_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> KFC moves to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that it was untimely. Which was unopposed. After the appeal was fully briefed in this Court. Contending that the extension was an abuse of discretion. She was walking down Lafayette Avenue towards Bedford Avenue in Brooklyn. The evening was dark. It was raining heavily. The gate to the dumpster area is left unlocked so that the dumpsters can be removed by refuse carters who drag them through the unlocked gate and across the sidewalk to be emptied into garbage trucks. Noted that the area was slippery. The area where the dumpster was located was dirty. Her alternate theory of liability was that since KFC made </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="773"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0928p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Valhal and Sullivan have both filed appeals from the order of the district court denying Sullivan's motion for partial summary judgment and granting Valhal's motion for partial summary judgment. The district concluded that the disputed clause was part of the contract but that it violated public policy and was therefore unenforceable. We will reverse. I. Factual and Procedural Background Valhal is a New York corporation which specializes in the management and development of real estate. Is a Pennsylvania corporation specializing in architectural. A document entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214828.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The tort claims were dismissed on the basis that Florida's economic loss rule bars the claims. A mechanic must graduate from a certified aviation maintenance technical school (or have equivalent practical experience) and must pass a written test on the construction and maintenance of aircraft. Practices prescribed in the aircraft's maintenance manual and perform the maintenance in such a manner that the condition of the aircraft will be at least equal to its original or properly altered condition. Etc. is returned to service. When the next maintenance is scheduled. Because these claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim. Pursuant to a contract to which appellants are not parties. American's mechanics certified in the Aircraft's logbook that the work was done in accordance with the Aircraft's maintenance manual and FAA regulations.3 Profile purchased the Aircraft subsequent to American's November 1996 maintenance and inspection. The Aircraft was severely damaged when the right main landing gear failed to extend during a landing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="768"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1995/95a1205p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: This case presents the question whether under New Jersey law a casino patron may recover from a casino for gambling losses caused by the casino's conduct in serving alcoholic beverages to the patron and allowing the patron to continue to gamble after it becomes obvious that the patron is intoxicated. That while he gambled he was served free alcoholic beverages until he became intoxicated. The appeals were consolidated. Our task in this appeal is to predict whether the Supreme Court of New Jersey would recognize claims such as those asserted by the plaintiff. For neither the Supreme Court of New Jersey nor the Appellate Division has addressed the question that is now before us or any closely related question. Because the question is both difficult and important. Therefore we are relegated to predicting what the Supreme Court of New Jersey would do if it were confronted with this question.[fn2] While we are required to venture this prediction and while we recognize the need to issue a published opinion for the guidance of the district courts in the circuit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="767"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/00-12917.man.html">LEWIS V. CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG (8/6/2001, NO. 00-12917) </A> Fatally shot TyRon Lewis through the windshield of his vehicle while he was stopped at an intersection. Holding that the complaint failed to state a claim because Lewis was alleging the negligent commission of an intentional tort and. That the City is protected from suit by sovereign immunity. Dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="767"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/00-12917.man.html">LEWIS V. CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG (8/6/2001, NO. 00-12917) </A> Fatally shot TyRon Lewis through the windshield of his vehicle while he was stopped at an intersection. Holding that the complaint failed to state a claim because Lewis was alleging the negligent commission of an intentional tort and. That the City is protected from suit by sovereign immunity. Dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="767"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1998/98a1780p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> That caused damage to its surrounding engine was separate property from the engine or was merely a component of the engine. 2) whether East River bars a tort claim for post sale duty to warn under a negligence theory when the damage is purely economic. 3) whether East River bars a tort claim for negligent repair when the damage is purely economic. The district court held 1) that the rod was not separate property from the engine. 2) that even when the injury is only economic. There is a post sale duty to warn claim if a defendant manufacturer had actual knowledge that the 2 product was defective. That GE did not have actual knowledge of the defective part prior to Sea Land's injury. 3) that East River bars a tort claim for negligent repair when the damage is purely economic. I. Facts Sea Land is a bareboat charterer of many vessels including the Sea Land Enterprise. The Enterprise was constructed in 1980. The Enterprise's SSDG is powered by a GE diesel engine. The diesel engine is made up of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2003/02-12261.opn.html">CSX TRANSP., INC. V. CITY OF GARDEN CITY (3/27/2003, NO. 02-12261) </A> The district court granted summary judgment in favor of a municipality that had entered into such an agreement on the ground that it was ultra vires. Which are not in dispute. Were succinctly stated in our earlier opinion. His truck stalled on the tracks where it was hit by a National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) passenger train. Claiming that the indemnity agreement was void for a number of reasons. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0156p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Defendant Appellant Norfolk Southern Railway Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2003/02-12261.opn.html">CSX TRANSP., INC. V. CITY OF GARDEN CITY (3/27/2003, NO. 02-12261) </A> The district court granted summary judgment in favor of a municipality that had entered into such an agreement on the ground that it was ultra vires. Which are not in dispute. Were succinctly stated in our earlier opinion. His truck stalled on the tracks where it was hit by a National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) passenger train. Claiming that the indemnity agreement was void for a number of reasons. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1111p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Are the Contacts Such That Application of American Law Would Be Reasonable? 41 a. Was seriously injured when she was sucked into the propellers of a scuba diving vessel. Plaintiff was a member of the crew of the vessel. Which was in St. We first find American maritime law potentially applicable in this case because the plaintiff is an American citizen. We consider whether applying American law is reasonable under the circumstances. Lucia might have in this case are undefined and. By this we do not mean that the vessel involved here was unlike those in traditional. The activity here was non traditional. Which as we explain is an important consideration in non shipping contexts. One of the defendants is a corporation organized under the laws of St. Was registered in St. Are so threatened or so strong that America’s interests must be ignored. The significance of plaintiff’s American allegiance is an especially important factor. The relevance of the plaintiff’s having entered into her employment contract in the United States is also enhanced. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C740557C88F27A1888256D3A00540B8C/$file/9956762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Were on the brief for cross appellees Jack Lawn. Were on the brief for amici curiae International Human Rights Organizations and International Law Scholars. That Alvarez </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="760"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1988.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Callahan were on brief. Greenspan were on brief. Apart from the four for which she was convicted. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="756"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0934p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> We are presented with disputes over coverage under two contracts. The primary issue is whether the indemnification agreement sufficiently waived the immunity granted employers under the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act. Holding the contractor was entitled to conditional indemnification but its general partner was not. We will affirm in part and reverse in part. Which as Chen's employer was immune from suit under the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act.[fn2] After Kiewit/Perini and Kiewit Eastern tendered their defense to CNA Insurance. Alleging it was obligated to defend and indemnify them. The district court had jurisdiction of the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (1988).[fn3] We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988). Because this is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment. Our review is plenary. Summary judgment may be granted only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Injuries or death or other claims or suits are caused by the sole negligence of a party indemnified hereunder unless otherwise provided in the Prime Contract. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="756"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2003/023820p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The complaint alleges two distinct tort claims at issue on appeal: (1) the federal defendants and the civilian 3 contractors are liable for negligently starting the fire or failing to prevent it. (2) the federal defendants are liable for Roma's injuries because they negligently instructed him to remove his self contained breathing apparatus ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="756"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7211a.html">SABA MOHAMMAD ALI V. CMPG NATL AIR FRANCE </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="756"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/98-8080.htm">98-8080 -- MARATHON ASHLAND PIPE LINE LLC V. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. -- 03/16/2001 </A> Remand. <center>I</center> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="756"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM2MDYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3606-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was awarded compensatory damages for lost earnings. At least to the extent such earnings were based on pay rates in the United States rather than in the worker's native country. Affordable and Mountain are now joined by third party defendant Silva. 3 In addition. Arguing that the document relied on by these third party plaintiffs to support their indemnification claim is not an enforceable contract. Is not authorized by IRCA under any circumstance. (2) it was the employer rather than the worker who knowingly violated IRCA in arranging for the employment. (3) the jury was instructed to consider the worker's removeability in deciding what. Because we conclude that appellants' and cross appellants' other arguments are also without merit. Madeira's Employment and Injury Plaintiff Jose Raimundo Madeira 1 is a citizen of Brazil who illegally entered the United States in 1998. Madeira was earning approximately $15 per hour in the United States and working as many as 50 hours per week. Such action was apparently unnecessary given his brother's willingness to hire him despite knowing Madeira's undocumented status. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/99-1178.htm">99-1178 -- DODGE V. COTTER CORP.-- 02/11/2000 </A> After class certification was denied. Convinced a jury Cotter was negligent in operating the mill but failed to establish its negligence caused their exposure to hazardous materials which required future medical monitoring. Now before us is a second group of fourteen plaintiffs who. Established Cotter's negligence caused their physical injuries and were awarded monetary damages. Is a mile and a half north of the Mill. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1995/95a1182p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> We are called on once again to consider the Three Mile Island accident as we determine the appropriate standard of care for the operators of the facility. We held that the Act created no federal cause of action and was not intended to confer jurisdiction on the federal courts. The actions were remanded to the appropriate state courts. These personal injury actions were removed to federal court and consolidated in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The district court found the standard of care was set by the federal regulations: 1) prescribing the maximum permissible levels of human exposure to radiation[fn5] and 2) requiring radiation releases to be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="749"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2095.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> Even though Harley Davidson was seeking the equitable remedy of rescission rather than tort damages. Its misrepresentation claim was barred under Wisconsin's economic loss doctrine. This system is designed to enhance customer satisfaction with ownership. A failure to respond is deemed an approval. Then PowerSports would have had 60 days following that rejection to file with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to determine if the rejection violated Florida law. No. 02 2095 3 dealers are required to have an on site owner operator. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="746"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/97-8886.man.html">WHITLEY V. UNITED STATES (3/26/1999, NO. 97-8886) </A> Because we have determined that the circumstances under which the accident occurred were not incident to military service. BACKGROUND</CENTER> The 1993 United States Military National Championship Rugby Tournament ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="746"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978886.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Because we have determined that the circumstances under which the accident occurred were not incident to military service. I. BACKGROUND The 1993 United States Military National Championship Rugby Tournament ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="746"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972234.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Who were born after the War. The district court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Judge Advocate General and that exceptions to the Federal Tort Claims Act. Our decision nonetheless invites Congress to review these claims in the context of ongoing scientific studies to assure that justice is accomplished for our returning veterans and their families. Army are veterans of the Persian Gulf War which was fought in 1991. They were inoculated with drugs and exposed to pesticides by the military in anticipation of possible biological and chemical attacks by Iraq. Each serviceman returned to his wife and fathered a child who was born with serious birth defects. The families of these children recognize that scientific studies about the effects of the administered drugs and pesticides are in process and will not be concluded until later in 1998 or in 1999. They believe that the toxins to which the servicemen were exposed were possibly stored in the servicemen's semen and passed on to their wives. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="746"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/97-8886.man.html">WHITLEY V. UNITED STATES (3/26/1999, NO. 97-8886) </A> Because we have determined that the circumstances under which the accident occurred were not incident to military service. BACKGROUND</CENTER> The 1993 United States Military National Championship Rugby Tournament ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="745"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200212261.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The district court granted summary judgment in favor of a municipality that had entered into such an agreement on the ground that it was ultra vires. Which are not in dispute. Were succinctly stated in our earlier op inion. His truck stalled on the tracks where it was hit by a National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) passenger train. Claimin g that the in demnity agreement was void for a number of reasons. Relying on our </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="742"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/10/022786P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Seven of the ten contracts were entered into by Barry Holden on behalf of Holden Farms. The other three contracts were entered into by the remaining plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and Hog Slat agree that all of the contracts were fully integrated agreements. Five of the ten total contracts contained a choice of law clause stating that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="741"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1300p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Holding that plaintiff Elizabeth Fedorczyk did not provide any evidence to support her claim that Royal Caribbean's failure to provide adequate abrasive strips in its bathtub was the proximate cause of her injuries. Which is an essential element of the tort of negligence. We will affirm the June 26. I. The following facts are not disputed. The tub in her cabin was about five and one half feet long and two feet. Fedorczyk has no recollection whether her feet were on or off the abrasive strips at the time of her fall. The tub was also equipped with a grab rail which Fedorczyk made a failed attempt to reach when she fell. She re entered the tub and discovered that there was sufficient space between the abrasive strips so that her feet could just fit in between them. She does not know where her feet were at the time of the accident. There were seven as opposed to four abrasive strips. This standard specifies that for any surface that is textured or treated with appliques. There is no definite way of preventing slips altogether. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="738"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200309/02-5045a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/April1995/95a1026p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> We are required to interpret and apply various sections of the Restatement (Second) of Torts to a lawsuit arising from a tragic construction accident in the Virgin Islands. The primary issue is the viability of Restatement section 343A. We will affirm. The power lines were clearly visible. There is no dispute that everyone involved with the project knew about the lines and that any contact with them would be dangerous.[fn1] On November 8. A crane was being used to lift steel joists that would connect the columns of the building frame. The first joist was installed with the use of a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-7089.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. At which time she was sexually assaulted by a United States Army recruiter named Kelvin Key. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="735"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1241D802AB900EF988256EE800585374/$file/0335306.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was that day driving a SKC dump truck on United States Highway 93 as it ran through the Flathead Reservation. Smith was driving as part of his work on a vocational course at SKC. All claims were resolved before trial. That cross claim alleged that SKC was liable for the accident and also asserted a claim of spoliation of evidence. While that second tribal court appeal was pending. Which is now before us. The district court found that SKC was a tribal entity for jurisdictional purposes and that Smith's claims arose on the reservation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 358 (2001) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="732"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991009.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Opinion issued 6/27/00 is vacated PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT STERLING DREW. These injuries were allegedly caused by the birth control drug Depo Provera. Is an enlisted serviceman on active duty with the Air Force. Drew was negligently given Depo Provera while she was pregnant with Sterling. Sterling was born with physical malformations (including an imperforate anus and a ventricular septal defect in his heart). He will continue to suffer from various other genetic and developmental disorders. Drew was not given DepoProvera while pregnant. Asserting that it was not encompassed within the administrative claim filed with the Air Force. It is from this dismissal order that the plaintiffs appeal. Drew was encouraged by various medical personnel at Shaw to use Depo Provera as a means of birth control. Drew was advised by the medical personnel that DepoProvera was one hundred percent effective in preventing live births. She was further told there was a mere one chance in one thousand that she might become pregnant while on Depo Provera. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043132p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We will reverse. 3 I. Decedent Henry Miller was born severely retarded. No one was ever appointed his legal guardian. He was placed in a Community Living Arrangement through Jewish Educational and Vocational Services. Carlos Moreno was the decedent's primary physician. The decedent was admitted to Frankford Hospital. The attending physician repeatedly advised Miller that her brother's condition was caused by an adverse reaction to the combination of medication that had been prescribed at the JEVS home by Markowitz. The decedent was transferred to the Philadelphia Geriatric Center. Charles Bongiorno was his attending physician. The cause of which was never diagnosed. The decedent was transferred from PGC to Temple University Hospital. The cause of death was listed as sepsis. Her complaint was filed on March 1. Moreno was an employee of Greater Philadelphia Health Action Inc. Because the GPHA is a grantee of the federal Department of Health and Human Services. Its employees are considered employees of the Public Health Service. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="727"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021351.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Concluding that SLU's contribution claims were barred by principles of collateral estoppel. Was liable in contribution to SLU. The Vaccine There are three types of poliomyelitis. An oral polio vaccine ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/05/962096P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Webb argues the district court erred in (1) holding defendants were not deliberately indifferent to his safety as a matter of law (count I) and (2) dismissing his state negligence claim on the ground of sovereign immunity (count II). There was an independent jurisdictional basis diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 for the state negligence claim.). The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. The following statement of facts is taken in large part from the memorandum opinion and order of the district court. After Webb was apprehended. In October 1993 he was transferred to the Lawrence County jail to face the pending South Dakota charges. He was placed in maximum security. At the time Webb was 19 years old. Defendants did not place him in one of two minimum security sections in the jail because they wanted to separate him from his accomplice (the accomplice had been placed in one of two minimum security sections) and because the other minimum security section was full. Another maximum security inmate. 3 Apparently Webb's first cellmate was leaving the jail and Webb did not want to share a cell with incoming federal prisoners. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="723"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2198.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Pitts with whom Pitts & Pitts was on brief for appellants. Was on brief for appellee. Were on board under the auspices of a sailing program run by the American Sail Training Association ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="723"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1839.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for the United States. *Of the Third Circuit. This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the District of Maine in favor of the United States on plaintiff Kathleen Barker Clement's claim of negligence.1 Plaintiff sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Plaintiff claimed that Barker's suicide was the result of negligent medical care and treatment provided by the Veterans Administration Hospital ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="723"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1589p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> We agree and will reverse and remand for a new trial. Parks) was a general laborer for Allegheny Sand. Parks is his widow. Parks was killed while working with the Gradall machine. An excavator with two separate cabs that is used 2 for breaking boulders into smaller pieces. One cab is in the front. Is occupied by the driver of the vehicle. Is attached to and controls the excavating arm. The arm's counterweight are all in one line. The counterweight keeps the machine from tipping when the arm is used off center. Drove the machine to the back of a shed where the carbon was stored. Parks was pressed between the counterweight and the wall. Parks' 3 conduct could be viewed as a legal cause of his death only if it were unforeseeable. The jury found that the product was indeed defective. The verdict was presumably based on the finding of the jury that the defect was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="723"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3001_011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Are decidedly odd. Block was underway on its Lake Michigan route from South Chicago. The lurking figure was Sobieski's crewmate. What Barrett did with Sobieski's head was bizarre. With his eyes watering and a burning sensation in his neck. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="721"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/05/97-2313.htm">97-2313 -- BENAVIDEZ V. U.S. -- 05/20/1999 </A> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="721"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1727.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Jones & Houston were on brief for appellant. Ltd. were on brief for appellee C&G Excavating. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND El/Cap and Henry Marine were two of several companies that participated in towing C&G equipment to a dredging project in Saco. C&G's negligence claims were brought before the district court of 1 This suit initially surfaced against the backdrop of a variety of legal disputes between contractors and the Transamerica Premier Insurance Company. All claims were settled before trial with the exception of the crossclaims between C&G and El/Cap and Henry Marine that are before us now. 2 Maine under both diversity jurisdiction. Many of the facts essential to a finding of negligence were vigorously contested by the parties at trial. Henry Marine was ultimately given the towing job. Arranged to have Henry Marine leave the intracoastal waterway and meet El/Cap's tug. In the open seas outside of Hereford Inlet.2 None of the equipment was damaged while towed by Henry Marine in the period prior to El/Cap's involvement in the tow. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="721"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/05/97-2313b.htm">97-2313B -- BENAVIDEZ V. U.S. -- 05/20/1999 </A> Circuit Judges. <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="721"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1323.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> 1993 [SYSTEMS NOTE: This appendix is only available through the Clerk's Office in Boston.]. Were on brief for appellants. The immunity attaches when the Attorney General files with the court a certificate stating that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose. 28 U.S.C. 2679(d)(1) (emphasis added). Can the Attorney General certify that there simply was no such event? The legal question is important. The answer will affect the plaintiff's right to a jury trial. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1998/98a1815p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> There was no accident or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5473B13E2B210FBF88256E5A00707BE3/$file/9856775.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> I. This case is about a state licensed savings bank. The bank was already failing and under investigation by the Office of Thrift Supervision ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4BBA9286A423AF8788256A870054E4C0/$file/9856775.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> I. This case is about a state licensed savings bank. The bank was already failing and under investigation by the Office of Thrift Supervision ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7E1E60662507174D88256D9E007B8A10/$file/0135863.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> The test was negligently ISHIKAWA v. While she was flying from Japan to Portland. Ishikawa was told she would be required to take a random drug test when the plane landed. There have to be safeguards to assure the accuracy of urine tests. One method of testing for a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="716"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199911551.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction because the Plaintiff's tort claims fell within the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="716"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-11551.man.html">JBP ACQUISITIONS V. UNITED STATES (8/30/2000, NO. 99-11551) </A> The court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction because the Plaintiff's tort claims fell within the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="716"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-11551.man.html">JBP ACQUISITIONS V. UNITED STATES (8/30/2000, NO. 99-11551) </A> The court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction because the Plaintiff's tort claims fell within the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="716"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199911551.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction because the Plaintiff's tort claims fell within the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971394.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Waggoner was injured while riding on the jet ski and sued. The district court dismissed the suit on the grounds that it was barred by the waiver. Is governed by principles of maritime law. Where States have a strong interest in applying their own tort law. Or was not on all fours with the maritime shipping and commerce that has traditionally made up the business of most maritime courts </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1176.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief for appellees. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1711.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> Ruling that they did not have a right to enforce warranties issued by the property developer. The Facts Nabisco and AUL were warehousing partners for Nabisco's snack food products. AUL's liability for any damage to Nabisco's property was limited to $1 million per occurrence. AUL told Catellus that the warehouse was for Nabisco and that it must be suitable for the storage of retail food products. Brandonisio was supposed to use a finishing product known as Sonisil on the floor. Which are airborne chemicals that have a fragrance. Shortly after the floor finishing process was complete. Nabisco investigated and learned that the complaints were all related to products that had passed through the Illinois warehouse. Test results indicated that all Nabisco products stored in the warehouse that were wrapped in polypropylene were contaminated with aromatic hydrocarbons. Nabisco supports this argument by submitting evidence that no matter how long its products were in the warehouse. They were all contaminated by aromatic hydrocarbons. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1659.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is amended as follows: On page 12. Delete </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="706"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/031760p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Subject to a $2.5 million aggregate annual deductible (as to which Olympic was effectively self insured). Before the policy was cancelled by Highlands just seven months later. 500 premium required to button up a surety arrangement that would have protected Highlands against such nonpayment. Eventually Highlands' action was whittled down to three countsclaims of negligent misrepresentation and negligence against Hobbs and a claim of negligence against Global. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291. We find that the district court was correct in holding that no such duty ran from Global to Highlands. Facts Olympic was a limousine and livery service that operated in and around Manhattan. Olympic's insurance coverage was technically a contract between Olympic and Virginia Surety. Because Highlands was completely responsible for all financial and administrative aspects of the policy. Global was carrier. Although Olympic never actually signed all the documents that would have legally bound it to obtain the surety bond. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="703"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1995/95a1048p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Appellants are three groups of plaintiffs whose separate actions were consolidated by the district court because they all claimed they were harmed by exposure to toxic wastes appellee. The third group are persons. The primary relief all parties seek is medical monitoring. Which was entered following orders granting the Army's motions for summary judgment. We will affirm the orders of the district court with respect to all appellants except the Elliotts. The only plaintiffs who have been able to produce evidence of actual harm by medical evidence showing the Elliott children are suffering from conditions that require medical attention beyond the medical services everyone in the general population should have. NCAD's Use of the Land as a Landfill The New Cumberland Army Depot is located just east of the Harrisburg Airport on about 974 acres of land. The former landfill is bordered by a railroad embankment and the Susquehanna River to the north and by Marsh Run Creek ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="703"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA0MTItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0412-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We must decide whether Section 360k(a) preempts common law tort claims regarding medical devices that have entered the market pursuant to the Food and Drug Administration's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="703"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/99-12407.opn.html">CARL J. FABRY, PATRICIA P. FABRY V. COMM'R OF INTERNAL REVENUE (8/21/2000, NO. 99-12407) </A> Circuit Judge: </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="703"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-12407.opn.html">FABRY V. COMM'R OF INTERNAL REVENUE (8/21/2000, NO. 99-12407) </A> Circuit Judge: </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="703"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-12407.opn.html">FABRY V. COMM'R OF INTERNAL REVENUE (8/21/2000, NO. 99-12407) </A> Circuit Judge: </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="703"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/99-12407.opn.html">CARL J. FABRY, PATRICIA P. FABRY V. COMM'R OF INTERNAL REVENUE (8/21/2000, NO. 99-12407) </A> Circuit Judge: </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="702"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612967.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Concluding: (1) that Locke's negligence claim against her employer was barred by the exclusivity provisions of Florida's workers' compensation laws. She was working as a manager at SunTrust's Recker Highway bank branch in Winter Haven. Because the teller's window glass was bulletproof. 2002 date she was shot. SunTrust was aware that a teller at the same bank had been pistol whipped by a bank robber. Locke was told that SunTrust had hired a security guard and that the security guard would be in place at the bank branch. There was no security guard in place at the branch. The district court concluded that Locke's claim was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Florida workers' compensation laws because her injuries were causally related to her employment as a bank manager. The parties do not dispute that Locke's Notice of Appeal was filed more than thirty days after the entry of the district court's dismissal order on April 10. Locke's Notice of Appeal was due on or before May 10. This is sometimes known as the workers' compensation exclusivity bar. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="701"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1919.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> James Hamilton were on brief. Bowie were on brief. Was brought against the company whose stack was involved. Its parent corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="699"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0056p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The Government contends that summary judgment was proper because of the discretionary function exception to liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Because the discretionary function exception does not apply to the limited question of whether the prison was negligent in not giving Bultema the proper number of forms and oral instructions once he received permission to get a bottom bunk. Because there is a material question of fact regarding Bultema's comparative negligence. Bultema was arrested and charged with bank fraud. As part of his sentence he was imprisoned. Bultema was initially assigned a top bunk within Unit 1 A. The bunk beds at Elkton consist of metal frames with foam type mattresses and have two levels a bottom bunk that is approximately eighteen to twenty four inches off the ground and a top bunk that is considerably higher. The bunks typically have a ladder on one end of the bed or on the side of the bunk. Bultema was given a medical examination by the prison's physician's assistant. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="699"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981884.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> After con2 ducting a myelogram to identify other problems that might have contributed to Talley's pain. The device was manufactured and distributed by Danek Medical. Talley was instructed to avoid excessive exercise or movement for several weeks. Talley was again instructed to minimize physical activity and to wear a back brace. A nerve injury common among patients who have had multiple back surgeries. Talley has been examined by other doctors who have offered differing opinions as to the stability of the Dyna Lok Device and the screws. A doctor at Georgetown University Hospital advised Talley that the Dyna Lok Device was not loose. A doctor at Johns Hopkins University Hospital advised her that the device was loose. Although Talley has been advised to have the Dyna Lok device removed. She consistently refuses such an operation without a guarantee that it will not worsen her condition. During the period that Talley was Dr. Designing endoscopes and assisting in efforts to secure FDA approval for the use of the endoscopes in the spine work that is unrelated to the use of internal fixation devices. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="697"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0767n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Because we find that Lubrizol's claim is not covered by the policy. Central to this case are two contracts: an equipment purchase contract between Lubrizol and Valvoline. Or loss of or damage to property is the result of the joint negligence or misconduct of Valvoline and Lubrizol. It was Lubrizol's belief that its National Union umbrella insurance policy would cover any payment to Valvoline pursuant to this indemnity agreement. Two are relevant here. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="697"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1473.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Bates was on brief for the Ellenwoods. Was on brief for the State of Maine. McGill were on brief for Exxon Shipping Company. Was removed from his position as chief engineer of another Exxon oil tanker. Relying primarily on the company's previous written policy that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="697"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/11/96-6410a.htm">96-6410A -- GAINES-TABB V. ICI EXPLOSIVES, USA, INC. -- 11/09/1998 </A> That defendants' conduct was the proximate cause of their injuries. They cannot state a claim for negligence per se under one of the state statutes at issue because ammonium nitrate is not an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="697"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/933074P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> When this case was initially submitted to this Court. United We have received answers to those questions and the parties' briefs in response to those answers. Are prepared to dispose of this case without further argument. They allege that Kris was permanently injured by negligent treatment he received at the Ellsworth Air Force Base Hospital. consortium. Twelve day old Kris Knowles was admitted to the Ellsworth Air Force Base Hospital on July 17. For treatment of a fever. improved over the next three days. it was only 95.3 degrees. 1989. Among those persons caring for Kris in the hospital were medical services specialists. These enlisted persons are roughly the equivalent It was the responsibility of the of civilian nurse's aides and are charged with tasks such as taking vital signs and providing patient services. which they did. medical services specialists on duty to take and record Kris's temperature. They were also to report any abnormally high or low The temperatures to the nursing staff or to the attending physician. this duty the night before Kris's discharge. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="697"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/11/96-6410.htm">96-6410 -- GAINES-TABB V. ICI EXPLOSIVES -- 11/09/1998 </A> That defendants' conduct was the proximate cause of their injuries. They cannot state a claim for negligence per se under one of the state statutes at issue because ammonium nitrate is not an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="697"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/97-9276.man.html">MATSUSHITA ELEC. CO. V. ZEIGLER (10/27/1998, NO. 97-9276) </A> Matsushita claims that the district court erred in holding that its right to sue a customs inspector for negligence in handling its property was abrogated by the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988. The machine was subsequently cleared for entry. When the machine arrived at its final destination. At whose facility the machine was inspected.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="697"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/97-9276.man.html">MATSUSHITA ELEC. CO. V. ZEIGLER (10/27/1998, NO. 97-9276) </A> Matsushita claims that the district court erred in holding that its right to sue a customs inspector for negligence in handling its property was abrogated by the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988. The machine was subsequently cleared for entry. When the machine arrived at its final destination. At whose facility the machine was inspected.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EB99F45A041054A388256FCB007AD2E1/$file/0316129.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was on the briefs. Were on the brief. Their boat was buffeted by harsh wind and waves. Nahid was tossed overboard. Monazzami washed up on an island and was stranded for three days before he was rescued. He was hospitalized for several days. While the couple was still in the foundering kayak. The Kiska conducted a brief Because we are reviewing a grant of summary judgment. The relevant facts are not in dispute for purposes of this appeal. 1 3450 TAGHADOMI v. At about seven o'clock that evening the search was called off. In subsequent amended complaints the estate and Nahid's parents were each added as separate plaintiffs and the United States was added as a defendant.2 The plaintiffs (collectively. They allege that the Coast Guard was negligent both in carrying out its rescue operation and in failing to contact local authorities who had access to better rescue equipment that might have been able to save the couple. Holding that the survivors' claims are not cognizable. Is liable in court only when it has waived its sovereign immunity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2553.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Garde were on brief for appellants. Fitch were on brief for appellees. Kenney were on brief for appellee. Were on brief for appellee United States. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971808.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Chief Judge: This case is a study in the tensions that can beset the franchisorfranchisee relationship. Defendants maintain that the suit was erroneously certified as a class action and challenge several other legal rulings by the district court. Deprived defendants of a fair trial on the precise issue of contractual breach that is properly the focus of this case. I. The plaintiff class consisted of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="688"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041816p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Because we believe the District Court should have determined whether it had personal jurisdiction before ruling on Sinochem's forum non conveniens motion. An American company that is not a party to this action. The coils were required to be loaded for shipment to China by April 30. Triorient was required to submit a valid bill of lading stating that the coils had been loaded on or before April 30. To transport the steel coils to China.1 1 The Vessel was chartered from MISC to Progress Bulk Carriers. Was issued. On the back of the bill of lading were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="688"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011345.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Because the METRO is entitled to a broader grant of immunity than that accorded it by the district court. Smith climbed an escalator which was being utilized as a stairway. The METRO had decided to utilize the escalator as a stationary walker on that occasion because the two other escalators at its Bethesda station were inoperative. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/985193.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Alleging they violated his constitutional rights because he was abused by the person with whom he was staying while in DYFS custody. Was admitted to the John F. Nicini told them that he was afraid of his father. Nicini continued to have difficulty at home and in school. DYFS was informed on October 9. That Nicini was not at school and that he had previously told the assistant principal that he would not return home.1 On October 10. That Nicini had been located and that he had repeated his refusal to return home and again stated that his father was abusive. Although the parties have not educated us as to the meaning of this agreement. After Nicini was located. Trigiani was unsure after Nicini'sfirst appointment on January 3. What happened thereafter is not clear from the record or the appendices submitted with the parties' briefs. Apparently Nicini was not admitted to JFK at that time. 1991 notes that Nicini was at JFK Hospital with an infected hand and might require admission to treat the infection. Bonnie Nicini reportedly stated that the plan was to hospitalize Nicini for depression. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/03-7121a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1838p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Waldorf suffered injuries rendering him a quadriplegic in a motor vehicle accident in 1982 when he was 24 years old. Waldorf appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial on damages and the refusal of the district court to grant him an additur as he contends that the verdict was inadequate and against the weight of the evidence. That we do not have jurisdiction over Waldorf 's appeal. We hold that we have jurisdiction over this appeal and cross appeal and will affirm the district court's orders. 4 This appeal is the third occasion that this case has been before us during the over 13 years that it has been litigated in the federal courts. Waldorf was involved in a two car accident at the four way intersection of Monroe Avenue and North 14th Street in the Borough. He was a passenger in a van driven by Kenneth C. Was riding on a seat that was not bolted down. Instead was secured only by elastic straps. Waldorf was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident. Corporal Victor Smith of the Kenilworth Police Department discovered at approximately 11:00 p.m. that the red light was not working. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec97/96-2931.man.html">WHITE V. MERCURY MARINE </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>White v. The district court held that White's claim was barred by the general maritime statute of limitations. One common feature of those boats was that they had Mercury Marine engines. How open the throttle is. The operator was positioned close to the engine. Was exposed to substantial noise from Mercury Marine's engines throughout his employment. Not surprisingly. The parties agree that White's hearing is impaired. They also agree that at least as early as 1984 White became aware that the loud engine noise was causing him hearing loss. A doctor advised White that his constant exposure to loud engine noise was causing his hearing loss. In 1990 White filed a workman's compensation claim in which he stated that the constant exposure to engine noise had caused his gradual loss of hearing. It was not until 1994 that White sued Mercury Marine in federal district court.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2051.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Melick & Porter were on brief for Restoration Preservation Masonry. P.C. were on brief for Charles MacGlashing and Sharlene MacGlashing. Plaintiff appellee Charles MacGlashing was injured when an elevated work platform leased by Dunlop to RPM collapsed while he and another employee of RPM were using it in their masonry work. The issue on appeal is whether the MacGlashings. This issue was decided in favor of the MacGlashings and Dunlop by summary judgment. There is no question that Massachusetts law applies. The facts are as follows. When he was involved in a work related accident at The Longwood Towers located in Brookline. RPM was formed by former employees of NER. Were utilized for stone and brick removal and to make certain setback portions of the buildings accessible. The outriggers were modifications to the original platform design. 3 3 On September 2. Were removing a piece of stone from the parapets of Building B when the work platform they were using collapsed. Who was thirty nine at the time. His future medical costs and net economic loss have been projected between $600. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec97/96-2931.man.html">WHITE V. MERCURY MARINE </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>White v. The district court held that White's claim was barred by the general maritime statute of limitations. One common feature of those boats was that they had Mercury Marine engines. How open the throttle is. The operator was positioned close to the engine. Was exposed to substantial noise from Mercury Marine's engines throughout his employment. Not surprisingly. The parties agree that White's hearing is impaired. They also agree that at least as early as 1984 White became aware that the loud engine noise was causing him hearing loss. A doctor advised White that his constant exposure to loud engine noise was causing his hearing loss. In 1990 White filed a workman's compensation claim in which he stated that the constant exposure to engine noise had caused his gradual loss of hearing. It was not until 1994 that White sued Mercury Marine in federal district court.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043589p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> One of these subcontractors was 2 Hull. Various logistical and timing issues plagued the manufacture and delivery of the freeze dryers before they were eventually installed at Huadu's facility in China in April 1997. These tests would have held the freeze dryers to even more stringent standards than did the failed start up test. Satisfaction of the performance tests was required by the Huadu Contract. The result was an agreement among Huadu. March 1998 was set as the date by which modifications would be completed and Huadu would grant final acceptance. Several particular provisions of the APA are relevant to our discussion. The first is a list of purchase assets. The second provision at issue is Section 7.8. Which states that: Purchaser will. At the location of the customer) or accept returns of products of the Business shipped by [Hull] on and prior to the Closing Date ... which are defective or which fail to conform to the customer's order in accordance with the following provisions (but [SPI] does not hereby assume any liability to any third party claimant. ...). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1724p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2010OPN.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> P.C. were on brief for appellants. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991209.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> South Carolina's economic loss rule provides that where a buyer's expectations in a sale are frustrated because the product does not work properly. The buyer's remedies are limited to those prescribed by the law of contract. This doctrine demarcates the boundary between contract and tort in product liability cases by helping to determine which theories are applicable in a given action. Its contours and rationale have been carefully explained by Judge Traxler in Myrtle Beach Pipeline Corp. v. Whose injuries are traditionally remedied by the law of torts. We would nonetheless reject it. 3 A contract involving the delivery of both goods and services is classified as a sale of goods governed by the U.C.C. where its </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/08/991424P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> I. The Marvin companies are Minnesota and Tennessee corporations that manufacture and sell custom made wooden doors. Which is effective in preventing premature wood rot and decay caused by moisture penetration. The central allegation is that PPG's products did not meet Marvin's expectations in preventing wood rot and deterioration in Marvin's doors and windows. There are thirteen legal theories in the Amended Complaint: (I) contract. The procedural background of the case is somewhat complicated. There are three central issues in this appeal. We must decide whether Marvin's contract claims are barred by the governing statute of limitations. We decide whether Marvin is protected by the state statutes on which it bases its statutory fraud claims. This case is governed by state substantive law. Where the state law is uncertain. Our task 3 is to predict how the state supreme court would resolve the issue if faced with it. We believe there is a jury question as to the existence of a future performance warranty. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1171_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Wright countered that not only was the technological knowledge provided by CERAbio 2 No. 04 1171 worthless and that it therefore had not performed its end of the deal. Which we agree was in error. CERAbio was strictly a research and development company which did not manufacture or sell Apatight or other products commercially. Wright markets and sells biologics worldwide and was looking to expand its product offerings in the bone replacement market. CERAbio informed Wright that it had an established and repeatable process for producing Apatight and that all of the raw materials necessary were commercially available. Wright agreed to pay $3 million for the CERAbio assets with $1.5 million payable upon closing and a second installment of $1.5 million due no later than three days after Wright verified that it was able to produce Apatight ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012011.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Holding that because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/99-12623.man.html">BYRNE V. NEZHAT (8/14/2001, NO. 99-12623) </A> This is a simple medical malpractice case. It was brought. The discovery was to determine whether plaintiff's counsel had conducted an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/99-12623.man.html">BYRNE V. NEZHAT (8/14/2001, NO. 99-12623) </A> This is a simple medical malpractice case. It was brought. The discovery was to determine whether plaintiff's counsel had conducted an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="673"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan95/91-3924.html">RESOLUTION TRUST V. DUNMAR CORP. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Resolution Trust v. Two of which are at issue here. Both loans were evidenced by a standard note and mortgage. (FIRREA) the Resolution Trust Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="673"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2104.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> P.A. was on brief for plaintiffs. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="673"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan95/91-3924.html">RESOLUTION TRUST V. DUNMAR CORP. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Resolution Trust v. Two of which are at issue here. Both loans were evidenced by a standard note and mortgage. (FIRREA) the Resolution Trust Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="673"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/02/942691P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Who was sexually abused by a school van driver. Angela Larson was born on December 3. Was diagnosed as anophthalmic in her left eye and microthalmic in her right eye. Meaning she had no left eye and her right eye was extremely small. Those home services continued until she was five years old. When Angela was nine years old and not progressing to her parents' satisfaction in her placement in the Omaha public schools. Spilker lived in the same neighborhood and have known each other for years. As indicated he has been personally involved in developing and implementing Angela's individual education plan since she was two years old. Where she was transported in a PLSD van driven by a PLSD employee to Oakdale school. The only other student on the van was a severely and profoundly handicapped youth who possessed minimal communicative abilities. Had been a part time PLSD employee for three years before he was hired as a van driver in 1986. Three PLSD supervisory personnel interviewed Szynskie when he was first hired but did not conduct a background check. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1506_009.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This appeal from the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim presents a question of conflict of laws that is very similar to the one we resolved in Sp ino zzi v. That was where the accident occurred and Mexico had a stronger interest than any other jurisdiction in regulating the safety of hotels located there. We said that it would be a different case (though we could find no authority on the point) if Sheraton's advertisements in Illinois had stated or implied that an Illinois guest of the Acapulco Sheraton would have the same legal rights that he would have if it were the Chicago Sheraton. Was dismissed on the pleadings and so we accept as true the facts alleged by the plaintiff. According to which: Carris is a fan of the Marriott chain and believes that it maintains </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011914.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Included in the prime contract was the replacement of the exterior windows of the 20 story office building. Which is the only variety at issue in this appeal. The four varieties were of two basic types: clear glass over clear glass and bronze glass over low emission glass. The GL2 windows were of the latter type. 1 SUN LITE GLAZING CONTRACTORS v. One pane was coated with a special low emission coating. Which was designed to absorb ultraviolet radiation and enhance the energy efficiency of the window. Sun Lite was required to remove and reinstall the GL2 windows so that the pane with the special coating was placed on the inside of the building. The partial dismissal of the breach of contract claim was based upon the district court's conclusion that the four year statute of limitations period provided by Maryland law governing actions for breach of contract and warranties had expired. Claiming that the dates that the windows were tendered were in dispute. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981432.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: We have before us an appeal from a former NIH scientist. Both of which are well recognized torts in Maryland. I. Popovic was employed by the National Institutes Of Health (NIH) between 1980 and 1989 as a scientist. Popovic and Gallo made a breakthrough discovery by finding a way to isolate the AIDS virus and by proving that it was a retrovirus. The results of the research were then published in Science magazine by Popovic. Gallo was unable to bring Popovic back to NIH because of the government investigation that is the subject of the instant litigation. 2 The government investigation initiated its investigation of Popovic and Gallo after a reporter's November 1989 article in the Chicago Tribune that alleged that the doctors' discovery was not original. Later concluded that a formal investigation was necessary. Here is where Popovic and the defendants sharply diverge. Which the defendants contend was undertaken reasonably. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-2013.htm">97-2013 -- MEDINA V. PACHECO -- 09/14/1998 </A> Cisneros got into an argument with the children's mother (who was living in a trailer behind her parents' house). Where he and the children were living at the time. The children's maternal grandmother. They were reunited three days after the officers removed the children from the Medinas' home. The Medinas filed a complaint in federal district court. Cisneros (who died in an unrelated accident before complaint was filed). Defendants argue the Medinas have failed to preserve all but two of the issues they raise because they supplied an incomplete record.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0349p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We are asked to reinstate the plaintiff's medical malpractice complaint against the United States. That complaint was dismissed by the district court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the facts in this case are readily distinguishable from those in Irvin and do not implicate the rationales underlying the decision in Feres. We conclude that the district court does have subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's complaint. There can be no doubt that he was fully sympathetic to the Brown family. Who was born with spina bifida. While Deborah was on active duty with the United States Navy. Which the plaintiff alleges is intended solely to prevent neural tube defects in a developing fetus. Later alleged in the complaint that prenatal doses of folic acid offer no scientific benefits to an expectant mother but are prescribed to ensure that there is adequate folic acid for the baby from the moment of conception onward. She indicated on a medical history form that she and her husband were trying to conceive and that she was currently taking prenatal vitamins. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/051906P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> IBP timely removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.2 The case was consolidated for discovery and pretrial purposes with twelve similar cases. Each case is to be tried individually. This is the first. Concluding that the unjust enrichment claim based on the facts presented was a novel cause of action that the Nebraska courts had not recognized. The order was amended numerous times to provide both parties extensions to the disclosure deadlines. Meggs's reports were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/05-7152a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> With her on the briefs were Robert J. With him on the briefs were Janell M. Brian Hundley and a woman were in a car parked outside an apartment complex in Washington. Who was in the driver's seat. While Hundley was standing outside the car. Who was about 10 to 15 feet away. Concluding that Officer Gaines was justified in shooting Hundley in self defense. Concluding the initial stop was unreasonable. Arguing that the jury's verdict for defendants on those two claims was inconsistent with the jury's written interrogatory answer. We agree with Hundley's estate that the jury verdict on the assault and battery and excessive force claims was inconsistent with the jury's answer to the written interrogatory. Off duty Metropolitan Police Department Officer Marcus Gaines was riding in a car driven by his brother Ronald when they arrived in the parking lot of Marcus Gaines's apartment building near 6th and N Streets. The man was Brian Hundley (Hundley was previously unknown to Officer Gaines). The woman was known by Officer Gaines to be a prostitute. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/03/022560P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Webber was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Sobba and owned by Holly Bray. Asserting Webber could not recover from her because they were engaged in a joint enterprise and. Arguing that under Arkansas law the joint enterprise defense is not available in an action by one member of the joint enterprise against another member. Webber argues the District Court erred in instructing the jury on the joint enterprise defense and that this error was so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial. Because we believe the Arkansas Supreme Court would find that the joint enterprise defense is not applicable in these circumstances. Because we cannot say that giving the erroneous joint enterprise instruction was harmless error. Who was now the driver. Webber gave Sobba driving directions because she was unfamiliar with the route. Sobba testified that while she was driving Webber began trying to kiss and touch her. Sobba's last recollection before the car left the road and hit a bridge abutment was trying to push Webber off of her. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0629n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in ruling that defendants are entitled to a credit for the settlement amount paid in the earlier lawsuit and that plaintiffs are not entitled to recover as damages the attorneys' fees and expenses they incurred in that litigation. This case is now before us once again. ISD's investment in X Com was unsuccessful. The action was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. 000 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="669"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1724p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: We are here asked to resolve whether under Pennsylvania law a commercial purchaser of a pre engineered warehouse may recover in tort from the manufacturer of the warehouse for damage caused to its contents when the warehouse collapsed. We will reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment for the manufacturer and remand for further proceedings. I. Plaintiff appellant 2 J Corporation is a New Jersey corporation engaged in retail sales of spas. The warehouse was destroyed. Inventory and other items that 2 J was storing in the warehouse at the time of the collapse were also destroyed. Arguing that tort recovery was barred by the economic loss doctrine. Jewell urged that summary judgment was appropriate because the warranty had expired by the time the warehouse collapsed. These claims were still pending before the district court following its ruling on Jewell's summary judgment motion. Since there was no final. 2 J's notice of appeal was premature. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1997/97a1543p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Specifically whether the tort of malicious prosecution </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115975.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> If the duty is breached. The stevedore must indemnify the shipowner for damages it is required to pay a longshoreman who is injured aboard its vessel. Is whether Ryan's holding (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022392.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Bowser Morner was to design a coal slurry impoundment for Lone Mountain's facility. Were briefed and argued in August of 2001. The court found that Lone Mountain was time barred from bringing this action pursuant to a contract statute of limitations. Noting that the District Court had ruled that all claims were controlled by the contract statute of limitations and had not addressed the additional claims of negligence. The District Judge reiterated his holding that there was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july96/94-1514.wpd.html">TRIERWEILER V. CROXTON AND TRENCH HOLDING CORP. </A> C&T offered to have Dublin Osaka Group. When these opinions were provided. Following is a description of each appellee's alleged role. Watt owned equity in the firm and was to receive a share of its profits. That Watt was participating in and overseeing C&T. Or tell Trierweiler that it was necessary to confirm ownership. Brasher wrote that Dublin did in fact have the authority to fulfill its duties under the Unconditional Guaranty and Security Agreement. Other defendants ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="666"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTAyNTAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0250-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Who are persons who were involved in federally mandated drug testing of the plaintiff that resulted in the termination of his employment. The district court dismissed the plaintiff's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 federal constitutional claims but concluded that his state law claims were not preempted by federal law and entered an order declining to dismiss them. Was terminated from his employment by Delta Air Lines in 1993 because airline officials thought he had failed a drug test required of him as an airline employee by federal law. That the defendants appellants conducted the tests in violation of federal regulations and industry standards and that they falsely represented to Delta that Drake's urine sample was adulterated.1 The district court (Frederic Block. Concluding that they were not preempted by federal law. The issues raised on appeal are whether and to what extent federal statutes and regulations concerning drug testing of persons employed in the aviation industry preempt the application of state tort law to events arising out of such drug tests. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="666"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTAyNTAtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-0250-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Who are persons who were involved in federally mandated drug testing of the plaintiff that resulted in the termination of his employment. The district court dismissed the plaintiff's federal constitutional claims but concluded that his state law civil claims were not preempted by federal law and entered an order declining to dismiss them. Was terminated from his employment by Delta Air Lines in 1993 because airline officials thought he had failed a drug test required of him as an airline employee by federal law. That the defendants appellants conducted the tests in violation of federal regulations and industry standards and that they falsely represented to Delta that Drake's urine sample was adulterated.1 The district court (Frederic Block. Concluding that they were not preempted by federal law. The issues raised on appeal are whether and to what extent federal statutes and regulations concerning drug testing of persons employed in the aviation industry preempt the application of state tort law to events arising out of such drug tests. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FF006B9841CD04FD88257137005C2896/$file/0435268.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> If the snowmobile liability statute's gross negligence standard is unconstitutional. The answers to the certified questions will be determinative of the appeal pending in our court in this action. We have found no controlling Montana appellate decisions. That our phrasing of the questions is not intended to restrict your Court's consideration of this request. Relevant facts concerning the certified questions are stated below. Whether or not directly responsive to the questions as we have phrased them. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Brian Musselman (Musselman) was gravely injured in a snowmobile accident on a National Forest trail. Alleging that the United States Forest Service negligently failed to correct or warn of a dangerous condition on the Big Sky snowmobile trail where Musselman was injured. Default was taken against Johnson. Kalahar settled with plaintiffs and was dismissed before trial. The opinion of the district court is reported at 311 F. Which held that where two tortfeasors are each negligent but it cannot be determined whose negligence was the actual cause of the injuries. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971386.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We follow the South Carolina appellate courts' consistent holdings that the doctrines of strict liability and negligence are distinct theories of recovery in a products liability case. Were killed. Five year old Felisha Moore was permanently disabled. When their rental house was destroyed by fire. The jury expressly rejected Plaintiffs' theory that the absence of a child resistant safety feature was a design defect resulting in strict liability. That Cricket negligently designed the lighter and that this negligent design was the proximate cause of the deadly fire. The jury was asked to apportion the fault between each of the adult plaintiffs and Cricket on separate verdict forms. The jury determined that Cricket was twenty percent at fault while Brock was eighty percent 1 John K. Talkington is the personal representative of the estates of Ashley Moore. Pamela Quigley is the personal representative of the estates of Allen Moore and Sueanne Brock. The adult plaintiffs' claims were extinguished.2 At the conclusion of the damages phase. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1431.html">U.S. V. HITACHI AMERICA, LTD. </A> With him on the brief was David M. With him on the brief was Yoav M. Of counsel was Stuart M. With him on the brief were David G. Which would have authorized far higher penalties than mere negligent non reporting or false reporting. It is clear. Was not shown here. The appeal and the two cross appeals were submitted for our decision following oral argument on January 4. Which were imported into the United States pursuant to a contract its subsidiary HAL had with the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2235.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> P.A. were on brief. P.A. was on brief. Plaintiff appellant Phillip Napier was shot by defendant appellee Ronald Ramsdell ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1597p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Poritz was the Attorney General for the State of New Jersey when this suit was instituted. Poritz resigned as Attorney General and was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Peter Verniero was appointed the Attorney General. Peter Verniero is automatically substituted as a party plaintiff for Deborah T. We disagree and will affirm the district court's dismissal of the complaint. Who was then eight and one half months pregnant. Was admitted to the Jersey Shore Medical Center to give birth to her child. Alexander's baby were taken only fourteen minutes prior to delivery by cesarean section. The child was stillborn.2 An autopsy was performed. A death certificate was issued showing the date of the child's birth as July 15. The birth certificate noted the child's name was Kaylyn Elissa Alexander and that she was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1912.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> McGlone were on brief for Plaintiff. Martin PLLC were on brief for Defendant. The jury also found that the club was 35% comparatively negligent. 12% of which was attributable to the club's breach of duty of ordinary care and 23% of which was attributable to the club's failure to install sprinklers in and around the sauna room. The sauna room was constructed entirely of wood. A metal box placed in a corner of the room with heating elements that were designed to be covered by a mound of rocks. There were two wooden railings around the heater to prevent patrons of the club from accidentally coming into contact with the heater itself. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991622.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Line 13 the words </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054952p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Department of Veterans Affairs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5078.html">JUNE SHYFACE V. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES </A> With him on the brief were Frank W. Because the Shyfaces established that Cheyenne's death was a vaccine injury in terms of '300aa 11(c)(1)(C)(ii). We reverse. BACKGROUND Cheyenne was born on February 8. His mother and grandmother testified as to the ensuing events.2 On April 2 Cheyenne was less responsive and would not cry. When his diaper was changed. The leg in which the vaccine was injected jerked uncontrollably. Cheyenne was brought to the emergency room with a temperature of 109 degrees Fahrenheit. Cheyenne was pronounced dead at 6:38 A.M. That Cheyenne's death was a sequela of the encephalopathy. The Shyfaces alleged that Cheyenne's death was caused by the DPT vaccination. On the ground that the E.coli infection (sepsis) was the principal cause of Cheyenne's death and was unrelated to the DPT vaccine. An evidentiary hearing before the special master was held on September 16. Torch testified that Cheyenne's death was caused by the high fever. Torch testified that Cheyenne would not have died but for the DPT vaccination. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3484.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is in the business of processing magazine subscriptions. Whereby Y.E.S.! was to procure magazine subscriptions for Subscription Plus. Was killed when the van crashed because of the negligence of the driver. Who was later convicted of negligent homicide. Because Y.E.S.! was an independent contractor. The negligence of its employee (the driver of the van in which Wild was killed) could not be imputed to Subscription Plus. Its fate is readily predictable from the disposition of the claim against her company. Because the accident was not covered by the policy after all. The state judge has held that the company has no duty to defend (his decision is on appeal to the state's intermediate appellate court). The insureds counter that findings made by the district court in the Wild litigation and upheld by this court namely that Y.E.S.! was an independent contractor. That the driver of the van was its employee. That Y.E.S.!'s owner was the van's owner demonstrate that the insurance company's grounds for refusing to defend the Wilds' suit against the insureds had no merit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1995/95a1228p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Plaintiffs Roman Kowalsky and Gary Petrillo appeal the district court's grants of summary judgment on their claims for damages arising from tragic injuries suffered while they were swimming at New Jersey beaches.[fn1] Because we agree with the district court that under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act. Are entitled to immunity from liability as a matter of law. We will affirm. He was caught between two waves and driven into the sand.[fn2] Although a lifeguard quickly reached Kowalsky and summoned an ambulance. He contends the water conditions were hazardous. Both the lifeguard on duty and the beach supervisor testified the weather was sunny and dry. The surf normal for that time of year and there was no reason to close the beach or prohibit bodysurfing. Gary Petrillo was swimming and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/98-2231a.htm">98-2231A -- GIRON V. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA -- 09/10/1999 </A> 1999 The last sentence on page 5 of the slip opinion is corrected to read as follows: Nor does she appeal the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law in favor of Warden Newton on the negligence claim. Nor the jury's finding that CCA was not negligent. A corrected copy of page 5 is attached. Sincerely. Giron was incarcerated. The case was submitted to the jury on the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5740B0EE33A6C6E988256C2300765661/$file/0156047.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Also that RMA was subject to a surcharge under § 506(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We must examine two former sections of the CCC to determine whether RMA could attach its security interest to the proceeds of PacWest's successful tort action.4 Section 9306 defined </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0412p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Finding that Budd qualified as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/93C8E3727E24541A88256FC0007FE9C0/$file/0435340.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Also on the briefs was Lincoln Beauregard. 3214 WHISNANT v. Also on the briefs was Kirsten Wilkerson. We hold that the government's alleged failure to maintain safe and healthy premises was not a decision susceptible to considerations of social. I. BACKGROUND Where a defendant in its motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) asserts that the allegations in the complaint are insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction as a matter of law (to be distinguished from a claim that the allegations on which jurisdiction depends are not true as a matter of fact). Which is in the commissary's meat department. The commissary is operated and maintained by the Defense Commissary Agency ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022104.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Is a successor to G.M. We will refer to these entities as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2002/01-14786.opn.html">JONES V. CSX TRANSP. (4/11/2002, NO. 01-14786) </A> Background </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2002/01-14786.opn.html">JONES V. CSX TRANSP. (4/11/2002, NO. 01-14786) </A> Background </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3583.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> However deplorable such behavior is. The question here is whether someone other than the perpetrator him or herself is responsible for the resulting injury. We must decide whether the United States is liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for a mail carrier's sexual abuse of 2 No. 02 3583 a seven year old girl who lived in a home on his mail delivery route. The answer is yes only if the United States Postal Service (USPS or Postal Service) undertook a voluntary. Then filing a written request for reconsideration after his claim was denied. The facts set forth in LM's complaint were properly taken as true by the district court in deciding the government's motion to dismiss. LM is the father and guardian of KM. Alleging that she was sexually abused by Tucker when she was seven years old. Tucker was subsequently prosecuted by the state. Was still in prison at the time LM filed his complaint. LM further alleged that the USPS learned of Tucker's inappropriate and criminal conduct toward young girls both through numerous complaints from relatives of his various victims and through notice from the Richton Park police that Tucker was being investigated for sexually molesting a two year old girl and a four year old girl. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2003/023381p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We are once again called upon to determine whether a lawsuit claiming medical negligence is completely preempted by the civil enforcement provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0063p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Even though that issue was not before the court. Also found at Condon's studio were a small number of questionable photographs taken by Dr. Condon's introduction to Parrott and the Coroner's Office At the time the offending photographs were taken. Parrott was the Hamilton County coroner. He was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2000/99-15021.man.html">SPAIN V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP. (10/18/2000, NO. 99-15021) </A> Circuit Judge: </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2000/99-15021.man.html">SPAIN V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP. (10/18/2000, NO. 99-15021) </A> Circuit Judge: </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0177n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Smith asserts that she is entitled to recovery under the intentional tort exception to the Ohio Workers' Compensation Act. Finding that Smith had not presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether General Motors knew with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2000/98-5729.man.html">POLO RALPH LAUREN, L.P. V. TROPICAL SHIPPING & CONSTR. CO. (6/21/2000, NO. 98-5729) </A> An owner of goods lost at sea has against the carrier when the owner of the goods is not a named party to the bill of lading. We also address the novel issue of what cause of action is afforded under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. The container containing Polo's cargo was lost overboard in rough seas. The district court granted the motion as to the contract claim on the ground that Polo did not have standing because it was not named in the bills of lading. Challenging both the district court's conclusion that COGSA provides an exclusive remedy and that Polo is barred from seeking redress under COGSA. <CENTER>II. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/98-2231.htm">98-2231 -- GIRON V. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA -- 09/10/1999 </A> Giron was incarcerated. The case was submitted to the jury on the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2000/98-5729.man.html">POLO RALPH LAUREN, L.P. V. TROPICAL SHIPPING & CONSTR. CO. (6/21/2000, NO. 98-5729) </A> An owner of goods lost at sea has against the carrier when the owner of the goods is not a named party to the bill of lading. We also address the novel issue of what cause of action is afforded under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. The container containing Polo's cargo was lost overboard in rough seas. The district court granted the motion as to the contract claim on the ground that Polo did not have standing because it was not named in the bills of lading. Challenging both the district court's conclusion that COGSA provides an exclusive remedy and that Polo is barred from seeking redress under COGSA. <CENTER>II. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011640.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The factual account below is drawn from the three amended complaints. The parties and the magistrate judge agree that the United States is the only proper defendant. Jones was reported to be drunk and under the influence of narcotics. To have left the campus twice to drink. The students allege that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/042304P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was operating a riding lawnmower in reverse and backed over Lamoni's foot. Five year old Lamoni was injured in an accident involving a riding lawnmower operated by Ken while Ken was mowing at a CPB owned facility. Lamoni's foot was partially amputated. Claiming (1) CPB was liable for Ken's negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The district court denied CPB's motion for summary judgment on CPB's argument that the respondeat superior claim was barred by parental immunity. The letter explained what Lamoni would have to prove to prevail on his claims I. Instructed Lamoni and Ken that certain evidentiary matters were off limits to all witnesses. Arguing the verdict of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1996/96a1312p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> This is such a case. It is a class action that seeks to settle the claims of between 250. 000 individuals who have been exposed to asbestos products against the twenty companies known as the Center for Claims Resolution (CCR).[fn2] Most notably. These </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/584907C164019DD288256B750003E183/$file/0056450.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> For 1 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 3753 infringement of the trademark. The answer was filed approximately two weeks late. The magistrate judge ordered Salmonsen to serve the answer on CDS and to call CDS to discuss 2 Tani was promoting his dental practice as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981461.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The case was submitted to a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Norfolk Division) on June 18. Scott was required to prove (1) that Ford had a duty to exercise reasonable care. He contends that proximate cause is not an element of negligence per se. The district court should have instructed the jury that if the ladder violated the OSHA regulations. During which Scott knew he would have to scale a large ladder. Scott contended that the ladder was unsafe because it allegedly did not have side rails that extended beyond the last step. Is whether the district court correctly included a proximate cause element when instructing the jury on negligence per se. Negligence per se is a recognized tort doctrine. Plaintiffs in negligence cases ordinarily have to produce detailed factual evidence regarding the precise manner in which the defendant breached the duty of reasonable care. (b) was designed to protect the class of persons to which plaintiff belongs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2002/01-11026.opn.html">MILES V. NAVAL AVIATION MUSEUM FOUND., INC. (4/24/2002, NO. 01-11026) </A> Circuit Judge: </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B3595E6C66D1FB5288256E5A00707AFB/$file/9936101.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: This tort case is a suit stemming from a personal tragedy. Their employer is not an ordinary one. It is the United States Navy. The suit is barred unless the United States has waived its sovereign immunity. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Nollie Costo and Christopher Graham were sailors in the United States Navy. Both were off duty and on liberty1 at the time. Was led by Brian Benjamin. It includes weekends. 5012 The rafting program was operated within the command structure of the military. The Navy sponsors various recreational programs that are intended to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/96-3266b.htm">96-3266B -- NEUSTROM V. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. -- 09/21/1998 </A> It is hereby ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is DENIED. The court has determined. Expenses which were liquidated in amount as of October 1. Is AFFIRMED. The opinion is otherwise unchanged. A copy of the amended version is attached to this order. ENTERED FOR THE COURT David M. Appellant Asplundh Tree Expert Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/96-3266a.htm">96-3266A -- NEUSTROM V. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. -- 09/21/1998 </A> Kansas for Appellee Union Pacific Railroad Company. A corrected copy of page one of the opinion is attached for your convenience. Very truly yours. Appellant Asplundh Tree Expert Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/96-3266.htm">96-3266 -- NEUSTROM V. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. -- 09/21/1998 </A> Appellant Asplundh Tree Expert Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4088.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Concerned that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2216.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was on brief for appellant United States. Were on brief for appellee Jean Mitchell. A heart condition that often causes an increase in the rate at which blood clots are formed. Which was treated by a hemicolonectomy in 1983. The operation was successful and he remained asymptomatic until the end of his life. He was required to undergo prophylactic colonoscopies approximately every two years to detect any recurrence of the cancer. He was taken off Coumadin three days prior to the operation. Coumadin therapy was restarted the same day he was discharged from the Hospital. Hassey was due for another colonoscopy. He was admitted to the Hospital on April 22. A suspicious polyp was located and removed by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA0MTItY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-0412-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We must decide whether Section 360k(a) preempts common law tort claims regarding medical devices that have entered the market pursuant to the Food and Drug Administration's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3146B9B8189E95F588256BA4007707DE/$file/0056450.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is amended as follows: footnote 9 on slip opinion page 3757 is deleted. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. 6102 COMMUNITY DENTAL SERVICES v. Both parties orally agreed to an extension of time for the filing of an answer to We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Tani was promoting his dental practice as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2002/01-11026.opn.html">MILES V. NAVAL AVIATION MUSEUM FOUND., INC. (4/24/2002, NO. 01-11026) </A> Circuit Judge: </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0468n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The district court held that plaintiff had not submitted sufficient admissible evidence from which a reasonable juror could find defendants negligent or that their alleged negligence was a proximate cause of Norman The Honorable Joseph H. The district court ruled that plaintiff's allegations and evidence failed to establish that Norman Davison's suicide was a foreseeable result of defendants' alleged negligence. 1 sustained damages </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2616FE1237103A9788256A34005C085B/$file/9936101.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: This tort case is a suit stemming from a personal tragedy. Their employer is not an ordinary one. It is the United States Navy. The suit is barred unless the United States has waived its sovereign immunity. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Nollie Costo and Christopher Graham were sailors in the United States Navy. Both were off duty and on liberty1 at the time. Was led by Brian Benjamin. It includes weekends. 5012 The rafting program was operated within the command structure of the military. The Navy sponsors various recreational programs that are intended to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="640"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2368.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief. P.A. were on brief. That such negligence was actionable under applicable state law. Was stamping innersoles by means of a marker machine. Her hair was drawn into the vacuum created by the high speed rotation of a drive shaft that delivered power to an adjacent </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="640"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/001375P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> I McCoy was convicted of drug conspiracy charges and incarcerated in various federal penal facilities from 1993 to April 16. He was bitten on the right leg by a spider and he sought treatment at the infirmary. McCoy's right leg was amputated in 1995. Again the treatment was unsuccessful. McCoy was transferred to several different medical facilities. He was not advised to quit smoking. Which is the only known effective treatment for Buerger's disease. Buerger's disease is an inflammation of the arteries. It occurs primarily in younger men (ages 2040) who are heavy smokers. There is no known cure. Abstinence from tobacco use is the only known method of arresting the disease. Which will necessitate removal of the limb. Asserting that his claim was time barred since he had filed his administrative claim more than two years after the amputation. That claim was also denied. His suit was dismissed. That dismissal is not the subject of this lawsuit. 3 2 States shall be forever barred unless it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal agency within two years after such claim accrues. . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="640"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2108.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> With whom Wistow & Barylick Inc. was on brief. Cavanagh & Cooney were on brief. She was twice falsely reassured (whether in honest error is not clear) that one had been called. They could not locate a pulse and discovered that the decedent's airway was blocked. Resuscitative efforts restored the decedent's heart to a normal rhythm and he was transported celeritously to a nearby hospital. Two are in the forefront. The centerpiece of the defendant's appeal is the assertion that the evidence did not forge a causal link between the failure promptly to summon an ambulance and the ensuing death. Since New Jersey law is less than explicit on one key issue that concerns us. As long as these signposts are legible. Our task is to ascertain the rule the state court would most likely follow under the circumstances. This kind of predictive approach is among our conceptions of law itself. 461 (1897) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044496p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> He died before the opinion was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. Alleging that the Defendants are liable for her son's death under a state created danger theory. She also alleges that Pamela Stiles is individually liable for negligence under state law. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment against Sanford. As we have noted before. The relevant question whether a state 2 actor's behavior </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0875p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> These consolidated interlocutory cross appeals before us pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (1993) present an interesting and important question of maritime law: whether state wrongful death and survival statutes are displaced by a federal maritime rule of decision concerning the remedies available for the death of a recreational boater occurring within state territorial waters. [fn1] which are explicitly excluded from the reach of the Death on the High Seas Act. The remedies at issue are loss of society. Was killed in a boating accident in the waters off Puerto Rico. Fashioned a federal common law rule applicable to cases involving the death of a non seaman in territorial waters under which future earnings and punitive damages are not recoverable but damages for loss of society or support are. Each party sought certification to appeal the portion of the court's ruling that was unfavorable. Our analysis of the Supreme Court's maritime wrongful death jurisprudence reveals that there is no federal substantive policy with which state wrongful death or survival statutes conflict here. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/971864P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Because Brown's injury was sustained incident to military service. Dismissal was appropriate. Brown was a cadet in the United States Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) at the University of Missouri Columbia. Brown also was enrolled in the United States Army's Senior ROTC advanced training program. Brown was required to enlist in a reserve component of the armed forces. If for any reason he was disenrolled from the ROTC. Brown again complained of excused with instructions to report to a nearby civilian hospital have it examined. Brown applied for and has been awarded benefits under § 1131 because the Secretary found that Brown is a veteran and has suffered </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/10/01-6444.htm">01-6444 -- TRENTADUE V. U.S. -- 10/25/2004 </A> They primarily contend that the district court committed clear error in finding Trentadue committed suicide in his prison cell and in finding that federal officials did not engage in the intentional destruction of evidence. The principal issues presented by the government's appeal are (1) whether plaintiffs have exhausted the FTCA's notice requirements. (3) whether plaintiffs have satisfied the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Oklahoma law. Trentadue was arrested in California in June 1995 for driving while intoxicated. He was arrested for these parole violations and held in local jails for the next few weeks. On August 18. Trentadue was placed in the Parole Violator's Unit of the prison where he made several calls to family members and assured them he would not be at the FTC long. He was pronounced dead a few minutes later. The circumstances surrounding Trentadue's death raise troubling questions. Trentadue's family maintains Trentadue was murdered by prison guards or another inmate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-6444.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Are granted in part. A revised opinion is attached. The petitions for rehearing en banc was transmitted to all of the judges of the court who are in regular active service as required by Fed. The petitions are denied. The principal issues presented by the government's appeal are (1) whether plaintiffs have exhausted the FTCA's notice requirements. (3) whether plaintiffs have satisfied the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Oklahoma law. Trentadue was arrested in California in June 1995 for driving while intoxicated. He was arrested for these parole violations and held in local jails for the next few weeks. Trentadue was placed in the Parole Violator's Unit of the prison where he made several calls to family members and assured them he would not be at the FTC long. He was pronounced dead a few minutes later. <hr> The circumstances surrounding Trentadue's death raise troubling questions. Trentadue's family maintains Trentadue was murdered by prison guards or another inmate. They also allege prison officials were deliberately indifferent to Trentadue's medical needs as guards waited several minutes to open the cell door and cut Trentadue's noose. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1962a.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Tierney with whom Tierney Law Office was on brief for appellant. Walsh with whom Kroll & Tract was on brief for appellees Charles B. P.C. was on brief for appellees Jeffrey Mennino. A passenger injured after police officers had chased the motorcycle on which she was riding sued the police officers. The following facts are not in dispute. Was traveling in his police cruiser north on County Road in Lakeville. Which he was operating as he drove along County Road. The posted speed limit on County Road was 40 miles per hour. Was attached as an exhibit to Meninno's deposition. 2 began to pursue the motorcycle. Realized that the police car was following them. Backing off a number of times when it appeared that the bike was wobbling and the riders might fall off. Telling her of the pursuit and asking her to notify the police department in the neighboring town of Freetown that the motorcycle was heading toward the Lakeville Freetown line. Were parked in separate cruisers on Route 18 in Freetown. Before turning left from County Road onto Mason Road and accelerating again to over sixty miles per hour.2 Officer Meninno kept up and told Sullivan by radio that he and the motorcycle were now proceeding eastbound on Mason Road. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1249.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Almost eight hours passed between the time when he first reported feeling sick and when he was finally taken to a doctor. Is a federal prisoner housed at the United States Penitentiary. Was convicted on November 28. Is currently serving a 262 month sentence. Kikumura's cell at 2:50 p.m. and observed that he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/953157P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Bobby Davis brought this action after she was raped at her place of business by a detainee in the custody of the Fulton County sheriff's department. 1992 she was working alone in At that the store when she was assaulted and raped by Lawrence D. Department. time Hull was a detainee in the custody of the Fulton County Sheriff's He was being held at the FCDC pending disposition of criminal charges of burglary and theft. The denial of the claim for loss of consortium is not challenged on appeal. Hull pled guilty to aggravated assault and was sentenced to five years probation. In December 1991 a petition for revocation of probation was filed based on the new charges of burglary and theft. 2 3 2 1 Hull caused any problems as a trustee before the attack on Davis.4 On the morning of May 13. Who was the duty jailer5 at the FCDC on that day. Which was parked directly behind the jail. She asked Bost to open the cell Bost opened because she was carrying a load of groceries at the time. agency. Cunningham was responsible for supervising Hull while he was out of the cell. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1904.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief for Perez y Cia. de Puerto Rico. That were begun but never completed. Perez argues that the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are erroneous. It contends that the district court erred in finding that it was negligent and in breach of its contractual obligations and argues both that the shipowner's contributory negligence caused the damages that are in issue here and that the ship was worthless when it first arrived at the shipyard. We note that LA ESPERANZA was sold at public auction by the U.S. Its argument on appeal is that the court erred in enforcing a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUwOTctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5097-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> That Murray and Gould had never actually worked for him and that they were threats to national security. We will continue to refer to the INS. 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 BACKGROUND In 1998. Who are responsible for general oversight and enforcement of the IPPCTP provisions. The PA is responsible for monitoring participants' compliance with program requirements. The PA is required to terminate from the program Id. § 139.4. NGIT was selected as the any participant who is fired for cause. The PA is obligated to report to the DOS and INS on certain aspects of the program. After they were approved to participate in the IPPCTP. They began to have concerns about Smith's conduct. did not pay them and told them that business was too slow. That both of them were working for many different employers. That Murray was getting his pilot's license. That they were both working for others in the Las Vegas area. That Murray was getting his pilot's license in order to open a business in Yemen. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/957694B.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Line 6 the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1331.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> With whom Goldman Antonetti & C¢rdova was on brief. With whom Jos‚ Enrique Otero was on joint brief. Before the Court is plaintiff appellant Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Apr2002/004323.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We will affirm the district court's orders. Joan McIlhenny's 1990 Ford Taurus had to have its transmission overhauled at 73. James Dunlap's 1995 Ford Winstar had to have its transmission overhauled at 65. The district court first indicated that Pennsylvania courts </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0364p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The checks were drawn on the accounts of several clients of John Hancock. Were made payable to John Hancock. Were entrusted to Sherman to invest. The claims against Old Kent were based on common law conversion. Old Kent argues that the district court erroneously decided that the bank's forgery defense was without merit and that the district court failed to address the bank's contention that the Michigan Tort Reform Act's comparative fault scheme applied to UCC conversion claims. Factual background Sherman was a representative of John Hancock in Michigan. Sherman was authorized to accept these checks on behalf of John Hancock. Approximately 71 checks were so indorsed and deposited over a period of seven years. Sherman was able to cover up his embezzlements by generating false accounting statements for his defrauded clients. The scheme was finally uncovered in March of 2000. Old Kent did not dispute John Hancock's factual allegations or that the bank was partially at fault. Summary judgment is proper where no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0192p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Plaintiff Juli Garretson was arrested by the Madison Heights Police Department on charges of retail fraud. Garretson informed police that she was an insulin dependent diabetic and that she would need insulin that night. Garretson alleges that the police denied her insulin and that she was subsequently hospitalized for diabetic ketoacidosis. Page 2 motion for summary judgment was granted. I. BACKGROUND Garretson was arrested by Officers Altobelli and Dixon of the Madison Heights Police Department for retail fraud in 2001. She was transported to the Madison Heights lock up facility where she allegedly informed the booking officer. Of her diabetic condition and that she was late for her current dose of insulin. The request was denied. No arrangements were made to acquire and administer insulin to her. Garretson was placed in a holding cell. The next morning she was questioned by Detective Roberts. At that time Garretson was not exhibiting physical symptoms of distress. She was returned to her cell. She was transported to an emergency room. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/April1995/95a1020p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Are Settlement Classes Cognizable Under Rule 23? 50 E. Are the Rule 23(a) and (b) Findings Required for Settlement Classes? IS THE SETTLEMENT CLASS PROPER HERE? 69 A. Were There Adequate Findings Under Rule 23(a)? 69 B. Could the Class Requisites Have Been Met On The Current Record? 70 1. Is the Settlement Fair. This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approving the settlement of a large class action following its certification of a so called settlement class. The class members are purchasers. It was subsequently determined. May have had a design defect in their location of the fuel tank. Many of the class members are individual owners (i.e. While others are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2004/023957p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Christopher Strozyk was killed at a railroad crossing when a train owned and operated by Norfolk Southern collided with the truck he was driving. Arguing that much of the Strozyks' complaint was preempted by virtue of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/01-5098.htm">01-5098 -- DUBBS V. HEAD START INC. -- 07/21/2003 </A> Complain that their children were subjected to intrusive physical examinations. Including reconsideration of the assessment of costs against the parents. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/94-4684.opa.html">FDIC V. STAHL </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>FDIC v. Of the target loans were time barred. These motions were denied. The case proceeded to trial against four directors: Angelique Stahl. Erred in denying summary judgment when claims relating to two of the target loans were time barred. BACKGROUND<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/94-4684.opa.html">FDIC V. STAHL </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>FDIC v. Of the target loans were time barred. These motions were denied. The case proceeded to trial against four directors: Angelique Stahl. Erred in denying summary judgment when claims relating to two of the target loans were time barred. BACKGROUND<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8013E33CBB42F83888256B5300002992/$file/0035922.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Christensen is a longshoreman who was injured while helping to retie a ship that had broken free from the dock. The injury was not a foreseeable result of appellees' acts. The ship was longer than the 1601 dock. Arrived at the Georgia Pacific dock and tied two mooring lines to the same Georgia Pacific cleat to which Asian Hawk was tied. Christensen was sitting in his truck on his dinner break when the ship broke away from the dock and started drifting into Coos Bay. Claiming that the ship was negligent when it tied to the same cleat as Asian Hawk. The court held that Southern 1 The federal question jurisdiction was based on the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). Holding that their acts were also not proximate causes of Christensen's injury. We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. 3 A. That act allows a longshoreman who is injured during the course of his employment to be compensated by his employer. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2001.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> The officers were never charged. The city police department announced publicly that it had concluded the officers were not involved in the alleged sexual assault. While we are sympathetic to the difficult and potentially dangerous situation undercover officers face after having their identities revealed to the public. It is unnecessary for us to reach the issue of whether KOB TV's First Amendment defense merited dismissal of the claims. I. BACKGROUND Vicente Alvarado and Steve Flores were undercover police officers for the City of Albuquerque in early 2004. The friend suggested that Alvarado and Flores were the two officers involved in the sexual assault. They were not told the nature of those allegations. The court order sealing the warrants was not addressed to KOB TV. KOB TV ran newscasts at 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. about the investigation in which Alvarado and Flores were named as being accused of the sexual assault. Someone informed KOB TV that Alvarado and Flores were undercover narcotics officers. KOB TV announced that the news station had learned they were undercover detectives and therefore blurred their faces. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1164p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> We will affirm the judgment and orders of the district court. We therefore will refer to the plaintiffs singularly as Duquesne. It is beyond doubt that during these negotiations the parties had sophisticated technical. The steam generators for the first unit were installed in 1972. Those for the second unit were installed in 1981. Duquesne discovered corrosion and cracking in the generators' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200111026.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of the Plaintiff after a four day bench trial. The Museum transferred the aircraft to the Naval Aviation Museum Foundation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2298.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> This is a suit for wrongful death brought against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Makes the federal government liable for the torts of its employees to the same extent that they would be liable under the law of the place where the tort was committed. Babysitting for the family of a Navy enlisted man named Norman who was stationed at the Great Lakes Naval Base near Chicago. Who are federal employees. That it is a federal hospital that may or may not be subject to ANCRA is irrelevant to the government's liability under the tort claims act. The medical personnel should have realized that the child was a victim of abuse rather than of accident. They seem to have been suspicious. He was beat up. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/042053P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 100 Scottsbluff residents were evacuated. Concluding that those claims were preempted by federal regulations adopted pursuant to the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA). Summary judgment is proper if there are no disputed issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. State law is preempted when it conflicts with or frustrates federal law. Because Plaintiffs concede that this aspect of their appeal is moot if we affirm the district court's other rulings. Or order (1) is necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety or security hazard. (2) is not incompatible with a law. Regulations adopted pursuant to the FRSA will preempt a particular state law tort claim only if they </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0947p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> The plaintiffs in these cases were injured by several policy decisions made by the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTQxOTVfc28ucGRm/05-4195_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July2000/991893.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/08/032651P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Doe Jr. is a hemophiliac who has received various treatments for the disease. All of which turn on whether the Does have presented evidence sufficient to create a genuine question of fact regarding who caused Doe Jr. to be infected with HIV. The first issue is whether. The Does have presented enough evidence that any single defendant was the but for cause of Doe Jr.'s infection. The second issue is whether. The Plaintiffs have presented enough evidence that the four defendants together are the only ones who could be responsible for Doe Jr.'s 2 infection. If the four defendants are the only possible tortfeasors. The third issue is whether the Does can sustain a civil conspiracy cause of action against the defendants. If the Does have created a genuine question of fact regarding causation. Jr. was born on September 24. There are various ways to treat Hemophilia A. Cryoprecipitate is the precipitate that forms when plasma is frozen and then thawed. It is rich in Factor VIII. The cryoprecipitate used in Iowa at the time was locally procured from single donors. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/952548P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The facts involved in this case are substantially uncontested. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/993235.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> We will reverse. I. The underlying facts are undisputed. Were vacationing in St. The Cestonaros were confronted by two armed gun men. Daniele Cestonaro was shot and died almost immediately. The Hospital Street lot was not an official parking lot. There were no signs designating or even indicating that it was a parking lot. It was neither paved nor striped. The National Park Service was aware that crimes had occurred in the lot before December 28. The National Park Service also received regular complaints about safety in the Hospital Street lot from local business owners.1 It is undisputed that the National Park Service had done nothing to deter nighttime parking in the Hospital Street lot. The lot was lighted at night. Five lights were installed illuminating the Hospital Street lot. It is undisputed the National Park Service maintained those lights.2 1. Of the dangers in the Hospital Street lot relates more directly to the underlying negligence claims than to whether the challenged actions here were protected by the discretionary function exception. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1994/94a0910p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> We will vacate the Order of the district court and we will remand the matter for further proceedings. I. Introduction and Factual Background[fn1] AT&T is a long distance telecommunications carrier that. Its rates and practices are governed by tariffs it files with the Federal Communications Commission. Only the reseller is a customer of AT&T. The end users are customers of the reseller and not of AT&T. Appellee Winback is a reseller of 800 inbound telecommunications services and appellee Inga is its president. Hereafter we usually will refer to both simply as Winback. As are other resellers. Winback is both a customer and a competitor of AT&T. Was infringing on AT&T's trademarks and service marks. Falsely representing that it was affiliated with AT&T and passing itself off as AT&T.[fn3] The parties resolved the case by entering into a Consent Final Order and Injunction. Were responsible for any infringing acts.[fn5] Consequently. The Final Order and Injunction was amended to obligate One Stop to serve each of its sales agents with a copy of the Order. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-2340.htm">98-2340 -- SMITH V. INGERSOLL-RAND CO. -- 06/07/2000 </A> We disagree and affirm. <ol> <li> BACKGROUND</li> </ol> At the center of this case is a large piece of construction equipment known as a milling machine. Ron Smith was a groundsman for a road crew operating an Ingersoll Rand milling machine in Las Cruces. Smith was using a short sledgehammer to dislodge a jammed ski while the machine backed up. The Smiths alleged the milling machine was dangerously defective because of the lack of mirrors which would enable the driver to see the sides and rear of the machine. Ingersoll Rand now raises a superfluity of issues on appeal. <ol> <li> JURY EXPOSURE TO EXTRINSIC MATERIAL</li> </ol> We begin with Ingersoll Rand's claim that a new trial is necessitated by the jury's exposure to extrinsic materials during deliberations. The jurors were given an easel and large notepad which. When the notepad was discovered in the jury room after deliberations. The district court notified counsel and held two evidentiary hearings to determine whether the jurors were exposed to the pages. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-4127.htm">96-4127 -- LITTLEFIELD V. MOBIL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCING -- 12/03/1997 </A> Senior Circuit Judge. <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0785n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The district court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because the plaintiff had submitted sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants were deliberately indifferent to the decedent's serious medical needs. Sitting by designation. 1 * create a genuine issue of fact as to whether the defendants' actions were the proximate cause of Bradley's death. The Ferndale Police Department was involved in a barricaded gunman situation at a Ferndale residence. All available officers were committed to the scene. Was the only officer available to patrol the city.1 (J.A. at 336.). Simpson pulled up along side of Bradley and began questioning him in order to determine whether he was the individual specified in the suspicious persons report. The officers learned that Bradley was wanted on an outstanding bench warrant issued February 26. Because the warrant was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9ECCD0480A5D2DB488257300007CB19F/$file/0456721.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> We hold that the FTCA claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and that the subsequent claims against the federal employees are not barred. The first is a federal civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/04/992363P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Andrew Gore is employed as a mechanic by Trans World Airlines (TWA) at its Maintenance and Engineering Center. He is a member of the International Association of Machinist and Aerospace Workers. AFL CIO and the terms of his employment are subject to a collective bargaining agreement. Gore was working at the Overhaul Base. While he and coworker Howard Cowher were on a break. Who is the Manager of the Facilities Maintenance Department and Clossick's immediate supervisor. Who is TWA's Employee Relations Manager. Nass held a supervisors' meeting with Parker and Kenneth Gabriel and told them to warn their employees that Gore was a dangerous man. Gore's identification badge photograph was enlarged and posted in various places at the Overhaul Base to enable TWA employees to recognize Gore. Firearms are prohibited from the premises and that the company reserves the right to make inspections of employee lockers. Other items of personal property located on the premises when there is reason to believe they may contain prohibited items. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/953198.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> In which Senior Judge Phillips joined. *Judge Russell heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). I. The district court's order granting summary judgment to Thompson and NIBCO is reviewed de novo. I.e. summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine dispute as to a material fact. The moving party is entitled to summary judgment if the non moving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case with respect to which the non2 moving party has the burden of proof. Beard is a Virginia corporation engaged in providing materials and labor related to plumbing and heating. Which was originally named as a defendant in the case but later non suited after Thompson and NIBCO were granted summary judgment. Which was never named as a party. There were no contracts between Beard and either manufacturer. When the fittings cracked and subsequently leaked after hot water was used in the system. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/07/962140P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is vacated. The opinion filed on that date is withdrawn. The attached opinion is filed in its stead. Was defective and caused an explosion at Terra's plant. Terra's principal place of business is in Sioux City. Mississippi Chemical Corporation also engages in the production of fertilizers and is the largest manufacturer of ammonium nitrate fertilizer in the United States. MCC's principal place of business is in Yazoo City. The entire paragraph reads as follows: This agreement will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Mississippi. Will be determined in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi and. The emphasized portion of the above paragraph is the forum selection clause at issue in this case. The meaning of which is highly contested. Located in Sioux MCC's technology is currently used at 22 other ammonium nitrate manufacturing facilities. The second count asserted that MCC's neutralizer technology was unreasonably dangerous and defective and thus alleged that MCC should be held strictly liable for the damages caused by the explosion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5250a.html">HADDON SEAN V. USA </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1758.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Snow & Hahn was on brief for appellant/cross appellee Focus Investment Associates. Sheehan and Wistow & Barylick Inc. were on brief for appellee/cross appellant American Title Insurance Company. Kelly & Murphy were on brief for appellees Tobak and Abrams & Verri. Bruzzi was on brief for appellee Owen B. 000 damage award on Focus's contract claim may have resulted from erroneous instructions and should therefore be vacated. Both motions are now known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B3F216ECA850F0598825707A004DCC31/$file/0335333.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> That sentence is now replaced with: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7012a.html">GARY CORAMAE ELLA V. LONG, EDWARD </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE5NDUtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-1945-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> For the hearing loss he allegedly sustained while he was employed by the defendant in its rail yard. Concluding that the plaintiff's claims were precluded by regulations promulgated under the Federal Railroad Safety Act. Was until his retirement in 2003. It modified the new locomotives' horns in response to complaints that they were too loud and too shrill. Concluding that Tufariello's FELA action was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/033666p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Matsko's amended complaint asserted two theories under which he claimed the United States was liable for his injuries. Matsko is also a plaintiff appellant in this case. Matsko asserted that the United States was liable because. Because we agree with the District Court that the Federal Tort Claims Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE5NDUtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-1945-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> For the hearing loss he allegedly sustained while he was employed by the defendant in its rail yard. Concluding that the plaintiff's claims were precluded by regulations promulgated under the Federal Railroad Safety Act. Was until his retirement in 2003. It modified the new locomotives' horns in response to complaints that they were too loud and too shrill. Concluding that Tufariello's FELA action was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/952453P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The HIVcontaminated blood was donated on January 16. At Camp Memorial Blood Center (Blood Center) by Darryl Bonner when he was in basic training for the United States Army in Kentucky. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a memorandum advising all establishments collecting blood for transfusion to provide: (1) educational programs informing persons in certain </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE5NDUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1945-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> For the hearing loss he allegedly sustained while he was employed by the defendant in its rail yard. Concluding that the plaintiff's claims were precluded by regulations promulgated under the Federal Railroad Safety Act. Was until his retirement in 2003. It modified the new locomotives' horns in response to complaints that they were too loud and too shrill. Concluding that Tufariello's FELA action was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516456.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Sitting by designation. * This is a diversity insurance coverage dispute governed by Alabama law. I. FACTS The facts are undisputed. Both West and ARP were insured at the time of the accident underlying this action. A $10 million umbrella policy from appellant Hartford 2 Casualty Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1392.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee United States of America. * Of the District of Massachusetts. THE FACTS THE FACTS The facts are rather simple. Appellant was shopping at the army commissary in Fort Buchanan. The district court judge thus found that appellant was a business invitee at the commissary because she was a shopper. The district court judge also found 2 that local law required appellant to establish that the commissary was negligent before the commissary could be liable for her injuries. The district court judge determined that there was insufficient evidence to show negligence by the commissary. LEGAL ANALYSIS LEGAL ANALYSIS The issue in this case is whether Puerto Rico law imposes a burden upon business invitees who suffered a slip and fall to show that the store owner possessed notice and an opportunity to cure. Puerto Rico law is unclear on this point. We therefore trace the development of Puerto Rico law to divine the result that the Puerto Rico Supreme Court would have reached in this case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2022_012.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The plaintiff is a young woman employed in a casket factory. She met and had drinks with a seemingly very respectable Guatemalan lawyer he was visiting Washington as a member of a delegation that included that country's president. As the plaintiff was waiting in front of a bank of elevators to return to her room. Because there was no one in sight. She got out at the next floor and was discovered by a security guard. The rapist was soon arrested. He was convicted of sexual assault. One of the security guards was sick and the other two were patrolling. So there was no guard either in the lobby or monitoring the cameras. Anyway there was no security camera trained on the area in front of the bank of elevators. Would any of them have noticed the initial assault unless they happened to be near the bank of elevators. The hotel has a duty to take precautions that are reasonable in relation to the likelihood that without them guests will be victims of criminal acts. The duty is imposed by tort law. Like liability for medical or legal malpractice is most intuitively understood as an implied term in the contract between injurer and victim. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981962.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Who was a secretary at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for a short time in 1972. During several public appearances and on a world wide web site Liddy stated that the burglars' objective during the Watergate break in was to determine whether the Democrats possessed information embarrassing to John Dean.1 More specifically. Liddy asserted that the burglars were seeking a compromising photograph of Dean's fiance that was located in Wells's desk among several photographs that were used to offer prostitution services to outof town guests. The district court determined that Wells was an involuntary public figure who could not prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. Because we determine that Wells is not a public figure for purposes of the ongoing public debate regarding Watergate and we also conclude that Louisiana law does not apply to two of Wells's defamation counts. We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 John Dean was legal counsel to President Richard M. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0056p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Defendants argue that the district court mistakenly concluded that genuine issues of material fact precluded the entry of summary judgment and that it failed to consider whether defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiff Geraldine Livermore's Fourth Amendment claims. Was subsequently charged with violating public health laws and forfeiture proceedings against Crosslin and his property were initiated. After a search warrant was issued. More criminal charges were filed and a Family Independence Agency investigation began. Crosslin and Rohm violated an injunction prohibiting them from sponsoring any more events on the farm and were subsequently held in contempt by the Cass County Circuit Court. Crosslin was shot and killed by an FBI agent in self defense. Peoples was arrested. Rohm indicated that he would come out of the house and surrender at 7:00 a.m. if he were allowed to speak with his son. Rohm was instructed to come out to the street unarmed with his hands up. What happened next is the subject of dispute between the parties. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/05/962140P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was defective and caused an explosion at Terra's plant. Terra's principal place of business is in Sioux City. Mississippi Chemical Corporation also engages in the production of fertilizers and is the largest manufacturer of ammonium nitrate fertilizer in the United States. MCC's principal place of business is in Yazoo City. The entire paragraph reads as follows: This agreement will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Mississippi. Will be determined in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi and. The emphasized portion of the above paragraph is the forum selection clause at issue in this case. The meaning of which is highly contested. Located in Sioux MCC's technology is currently used at 22 other ammonium nitrate manufacturing facilities. The second count asserted that MCC's neutralizer technology was unreasonably dangerous and defective and thus alleged that MCC should be held strictly liable for the damages caused by the explosion. MCC sought a declaratory judgment that it was not liable in any way for the explosion at Terra's Port Neal facility and asserted a defamation claim against Terra.4 In December 1995. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/96-6375.htm">96-6375 -- VICE V. CONOCO INC. -- 08/03/1998 </A> Circuit Judge. <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/00-1024.htm">00-1024 -- BANGERT BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. V. KIEWIT WESTERN CO. -- 11/13/2002 </A> Circuit Judge. <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1059.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Kaplan and The Kaplan/Bond Group were on brief for appellants. Dana & Gould were on brief for appellee. The district court held that the remedies were preempted. Discerning the law in this area is far from easy. We are constrained to reverse in part and to remand for further proceedings. The basic facts of the case are not in dispute. The captain and owner 2 2 were fined a total of $30. 000 of which was to be available to compensate individuals. The claimants in the present appeal are a group of shellfish dealers who allege severe economic losses arising from the two week hiatus in shellfishing activities. Which held that compensation for economic losses standing alone is unavailable in admiralty cases. The dealers assert that their businesses were injured 4 4 when the World Prodigy spill prevented local fishermen from harvesting shellfish in Narragansett Bay and thereby precluded the dealers from purchasing the shellfish and reselling them to restaurants and other buyers. The dealers' maritime law claims are thus purely for economic losses. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-3086.htm">97-3086 -- SAPORITO V. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF LABETTE, KANSAS -- 07/28/1998 </A> The trial court is affirmed. <center>I. Background</center> This action was brought by Saporito. Saporito and Roberts were able to escape from the partially submerged and disabled vehicle. Were not discovered until the following morning. Roberts died sometime during the night and Saporito was initially believed to be dead when found. Saporito filed this action against County for negligently failing to erect traffic signs warning of periodic flooding and for negligently failing to perform its law enforcement duties in commencing and continuing a search for Saporito and Roberts after they were reported missing. The sequence of events which led to the fatal accident began at approximately 5:30 p.m. on December 17. Saporito's home was located on Strauss Road. Which Saporito knew was impassible due to the flooding of the Neosho River based upon the level of water surrounding her home and from radio news reports. The alternate route was a gravel road two miles east of the Strauss Road intersection. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/94-3327.wpd.html">NEWLAND V. NEWLAND </A> That Appellant's claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. Because we agree that Appellant's claims are barred by the statute of limitations. The Bank was removed as administrator of the estate on May 12. 1992 and at that time Fairbanks was permitted to withdraw as attorney of record for the Bank. Appellees concluded that Charles was presumed dead under a specific provision of the Kansas probate code. Appellees thus prepared a petition for final settlement stating that Lester's siblings were the only surviving heirs who were known or could be ascertained with reasonable diligence. The reports of Charles' death were greatly exaggerated. The court ruled that the presumption of death statute was not self executing. The state district court granted Charles' petition and a hearing was scheduled for October 4. The state district court later held that Charles was the sole heir of the estate. 1991 and ordered the district court to conduct a hearing to restore Charles to the position he would have been in absent the erroneous order of final settlement. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2232.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> were on brief. Were on brief. Was a passenger in the front seat of his parents'. Cabrera was driving the Sonata home from a family outing to the movies. The Sonata was struck by another car on the right side. Eduardo was located between three and ten inches from the airbag. The estate alleged that Hyundai was strictly liable for Eduardo's death. That the airbag system was not defectively designed and that Eduardo's death was caused by his failure to wear his seatbelt at the time of the accident. After an eleven day trial. Hyundai moved to set them aside as inconsistent and asked that the jury be recharged because it could not rationally have reached differing conclusions on the strict liability and negligence counts. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/09/033831P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The district court denied the motion on the grounds the three principals were not signatories to the franchise agreements between the two corporations. The tort lawsuit was not covered by the agreements' arbitration clauses. The purpose of the agreements was to sell new and used music compact discs (CDs). Each franchise agreement provided </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2003/024098p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The principal issue on appeal is the proper application of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to the proffered testimony of plaintiffs' experts. 3 I. Its tragic facts have been well documented. Twelve year old Natalie Calhoun was vacationing with her friend. Affixed to the jet ski was a warning that the minimum recommended age for operation was fourteen. No parents or guardians were present at this time. While Melanie was riding the jet ski. Fox that riding the jet ski was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032832np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> After he was placed under arrest on October 27. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. I. Because we write only for parties who are familiar with the facts. Rosario was arrested for hindering/obstructing the arrest of Osvaldo Garcia. He suffered an asthma attack. 3 Although he was eventually given oxygen and an ambulance was called. The jury found that Detective Loaces was liable for false arrest. That all four defendant detectives were negligent in providing medical care. That Esteban Rosario's estate was entitled to $2. Defendants were found not liable. Defendants claim that evidence of prior bad acts by Gaston and Loaces should have been excluded as unduly prejudicial. Defendants argue the District Court should have excluded portions of an allegedly unauthenticated videotape that was shown to the jury. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 5 We exercise de novo review over the District Court's legal conclusions and review its evidentiary decisions for abuse of discretion. A. Immunity The jury found defendants were negligent in their provision of medical care to Esteban Rosario. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sep1999/985222.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> New Jersey (the hospital where Michelina was born). Inc. (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/021993u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The standard of review for both dismissals is plenary. 176 (3d Cir. 2000) (stating that standard of review for Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is plenary). 342 (3d Cir. 1989) (stating that standard of review for Rule 12(c) motion to dismiss is plenary). The United States is immune from liability in tort actions. The District Court correctly noted that procedurally the United States should have filed a Rule 12(c) motion for a judgment on the pleadings because it had already filed an answer. It is not clear whether Global Financial's negligence claim was based on a duty not to accept competing assignments or a duty to inform Global Financial of a competing assignment. The District Court correctly dismissed the latter basis for the claim and addressed The misrepresentation exception to the FTCA states that the FTCA is not applicable to claims that arise out of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971583.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Thirty three year old Kevin Brown was arrested by police from the Town of Leesburg and jailed at the Loudoun County Adult Detention Center ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031033.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1106.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is amended as follows: On page 14. P.C. were on brief for Sea 3. Murphy was on brief for Storage Tank Development Corporation. Anderson and Latti Associates were on briefs for plaintiff. Defendants were the owner of the facility. Storage Tank's and Sea 3's third party claims against Goudreau were omitted from that trial.1 On October 9. Finding him to have been damaged in the amount of $1. I. APPELLATE JURISDICTION Clausen argues that we do not have appellate jurisdiction over Storage Tank's appeal because the district court's December 31. Amended judgment was not an appealable </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0061p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Plaintiff Joshua Nye was injured as a passenger of a car that collided with a train. Nye presents three overarching questions for this court to decide: (1) whether his adequacy of warning device claim is preempted by federal law. (2) whether summary judgment was proper on his negligence claims relating to adequacy of visibility of the train cars and railroad crossing. CSX Transportation Page 2 (3) whether summary judgment was proper on his spoliation claim. We hold that Nye's first claim is preempted by federal law. The district court's grant of summary judgment is affirmed. Between 4:00 and 4:30 a.m. he decided to move his classic 1968 Mustang automobile because people were leaning on it. Bishop was unable to stop his car. He was unable to avoid collision with the side of the CSXT train. Although it is not clear whether Nye jumped out of the car to avoid the accident or was thrown by force out of the car. He was dragged by the train. Was attending the party in the nearby field. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/00-7008a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs were Kevin C. Was on the brief for amicus curiae District of Columbia Financial Responsibility & Management Assistance Authority. On the brief were Brendan V. The District of Columbia contends that the officers are enti tled to qualified immunity because. It was not clearly established prior to Eric Butera's death that the officers' conduct would violate these rights. The appeal presents two questions of first impression in this circuit: (1) whether the District of Columbia can be held constitutionally liable for failing to protect an individual who is not in custody from harm inflicted by a third party. Through which Eric Butera might have succeeded in proving a constitutional violation. Was not clearly established prior to his death. The officers were entitled to qualified immu nity. We also hold that there is no parental due process right to the company of an adult child who is independent. The officers were entitled to summary judgment on all claims brought under 42 U.S.C. s 1983. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7008a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs were Kevin C. Was on the brief for amicus curiae District of Columbia Financial Responsibility &. On the brief were Brendan V. the District of Columbia contends that the officers are enti tled to qualified immunity because. It was not clearly established prior to Eric Butera's death that the officers' conduct would violate these rights. the appeal presents two questions of first impression in this circuit: (1) whether the District of Columbia can be held constitutionally liable for failing to protect an individual who is not in custody from harm inflicted by a third party. through which Eric Butera might have succeeded in proving a constitutional violation. Was not clearly established prior to his death. The officers were entitled to qualified immu nity. We also hold that there is no parental due process right to the company of an adult child who is independent. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051598p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We will affirm. 3 I. John Kaucher was hired by the County of Bucks in 1999 as a corrections officer at the Bucks County Correctional Facility. Who are responsible for supervising inmates at work locations and in housing units and for transporting inmates between institutions and to and from outside appointments. The job description notes that corrections officers will have daily contact with incarcerated individuals and warns that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/95-2963.man.html">JENNINGS V. BIC CORP. (7/22/1999, NO. 95-2963) </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/40131A1D6CE55DBE88256EA100839DF4/$file/0256197o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. If California's negligence and public nuisance law were so unsettled as to allow for the majority's creative interpretation of California law. We should have certified the issues to the California Supreme Court. A This is indeed a tragic case. A mentally troubled man who was prohibited by federal law from purchasing a gun. He was armed with a number of firearms. Is not against Furrow or even against the entities that sold the weapons to Furrow. A secondary market where persons who are illegal purchasers and have injurious intent obtain their firearms. Plaintiffs do not allege that Glock1 did anything illeGlock is the manufacturer of one of the guns that Furrow used to injure his victims. Glock is sometimes used as a shorthand reference to all the remaining defendants. 1 6854 ILETO v. Plaintiffs allege that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/95-2963.man.html">JENNINGS V. BIC CORP. (7/22/1999, NO. 95-2963) </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6A9AA31F4AAD1F6888256AEF005A9B4A/$file/9936147.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Although much of what happened here was characterized as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6B21EC63D10FD7898825723C0000EA95/$file/0516790.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 18546. Petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc will remain due 45 days from the November 14. Which is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The relevant facts are not disputed. Darrow Erlin was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture and attempt to manufacture methaqualone. Erlin was convicted of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. Erlin was released from prison. He was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. That court ruled that the period of parole should have been limited to the three year methaqualone sentence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2352.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Borten was on brief for appellant. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/02-7145.htm">02-7145 -- DELASHAW V. TYSON FOODS INC. -- 06/07/2004 </A> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiffs Curtis and Jennice Delashaw filed a petition in Oklahoma state court in February 2002. The only claim at issue in this appeal is plaintiffs' claim that the Tyson Defendants were negligent in designing and overseeing the construction of swine barns on plaintiffs' property.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1842.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief. Were on brief. The roofs were installed on commercial buildings in Woburn and Burlington. The roofs were composed of unreinforced polyvinyl chloride membranes and were sold with ten year warranties. Cummings learned that such PVC roofs were subject to catastrophic failure and. 3) was suitable for use in the variable climate of Massachusetts. Unreinforced PVC roofs are most likely to shatter in cold weather. It is not clear how well known the shattering phenomenon was before that time. Although it was unclear whether there were any incidents of shattering during that period. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/00-7134.htm">00-7134 -- CRAIG V. MURPHREE -- 05/15/2002 </A> Which was based on the district court's refusal to give jury instructions regarding joint duty and concurrent causation theories. Was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1995 after the cancer had spread to her lymph nodes. Balluh was employed by the federal government at W.W. Were clinically indicative of early cancer and merited further testing and evaluation. Craig sued the United States for medical malpractice under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Negligently failed in 1994 to order further tests to ascertain whether palpable fibrocystic changes in her left breast were malignant. (See Appellant's App. at 104 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F8B414C76D42798E88256E5A00707D26/$file/9936147.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Although much of what happened here was characterized as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july98/97-5195.man.html">ROBERTS V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. (7/22/1998, NO. 97-5195) </A> Congress subsequently determined that it was in the national interest to encourage the private sector to participate in this effort. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 established the Atomic Energy Commission and gave it authority to license and regulate nuclear power plants. See 42 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq. Private power companies were reluctant to invest in nuclear facilities. Unless such law is inconsistent with the provisions of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0247p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Chomic's exclusive remedy is an action against the United States. At issue in this appeal is whether the statute of limitations found in the FTCA bars the plaintiff's suit. I. This case is significant in that it presents this court with the opportunity to address for the first time the issue of when a 1 No. 03 1174 Chomic v. No. 03 1174 claim for wrongful death accrues for purposes of the FTCA where both an injury and its cause are known prior to death and where state law provides a derivative. The facts are not in dispute insofar as this appeal is concerned. That is. The government argues that the plaintiff's suit was properly dismissed because she failed to file an administrative claim within the two year statute of limitations period applicable to claims brought under the FTCA. While Gorjup was a resident at the Department of Veteran Affairs Medical Center in Michigan. Chomic alleges that the fall was the result of the negligence and/or medical malpractice of the government's agents. The plaintiff further alleges that the injuries arising from this fall were a proximate cause of Gorjup's death on November 23. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0199p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Seeking a declaration that it was not required to defend or indemnify J & L in a personal injury action in state court relating to a logging accident that occurred on November 13. Was preparing to haul a load of timber from a J & L logging site. 2004ction was whether Shields was an employee of J & L at the time of his injury and. Facts J & L is a small. Is a fifty eight year old man who has worked in or around the logging industry most of his adult life. Which were garaged at his house and were maintained primarily by him. J & L hired Shields's trucks and drivers when it needed loads hauled and did not have any available trucks or drivers of its own. Although there was no formal contract between them. The payment arrangement between Shields and J & L was somewhat complicated. Shields was paid by the load for his work hauling for J & L. Shields was listed as an employee on the J & L payroll registers. He received a weekly payroll check of $250 from which taxes and health insurance premiums were withheld. He also received a check from the general account from which no withholdings were taken. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july98/97-5195.man.html">ROBERTS V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. (7/22/1998, NO. 97-5195) </A> Congress subsequently determined that it was in the national interest to encourage the private sector to participate in this effort. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 established the Atomic Energy Commission and gave it authority to license and regulate nuclear power plants. See 42 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq. Private power companies were reluctant to invest in nuclear facilities. Unless such law is inconsistent with the provisions of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971315.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Line 17 Amicus' name in the counsel listing is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may97/95-6445.wpd.html">BREEDEN V. ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC. </A> Bobby Joe Breeden and his wife Doris sustained injuries when their vehicle was struck from behind by a vehicle driven by Alfonso Gomez. Breeden was attempting a left turn. The jury found that ABF was negligent. Breeden was not contributorily negligent. That total damages were $561. The trial court's failure to order prejudgment interest for the period between the return of the jury verdict and the date judgment was entered by the court. An ABF tractor trailer truck was travelling several hundred feet behind the Breedens' vehicle. He was unable to avoid impact. Gomez was negligent in accelerating without checking the roadway when the ABF truck began to pull to the shoulder. Breeden was 0% negligent. That ABF was responsible for 10% of the negligence. Gomez was to blame for 90% of the negligence. The verdict form used by the jury is reproduced as an appendix. Part C of the verdict form indicated to the jury that the damage award </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1995/95a1083p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> (2) that removal is proper under the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1461.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> After the systems were awarded to other buyers. I. Factual background BEN is a minority owned broadcast company based in New York. BEN is in the business of developing television programming </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/97-1421.htm">97-1421 -- UNITED INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS INC. V. WHARF (HOLDINGS) LIMITED -- 04/28/2000 </A> NYNEX devoted its resources to this early phase of the project with the tacit understanding that if Wharf received the award and both Wharf and NYNEX were comfortable with the relationship and the project. NYNEX would have an opportunity to invest in the communications company or possibly garner an operations and maintenance contract for its efforts. Mark Schneider. UIH is based in Denver. UIH representatives made it clear they were not interested in serving as a consultant on the project for a fee. Would commit their resources in exchange for a right to invest in CNCL if Wharf was awarded the license. In response to UIH overtures that it was interested in obtaining a greater ownership interest. A foreign company is not permitted to own more than 10% in the cable operator. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034395p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Whose sailboat was destroyed by heavy seas after it was moored at the Virgin Islands National Park. We must decide whether equitable tolling is applicable to save Hedges' claim. Where it was destroyed. Which was manufactured by Environmental Moorings International ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0983n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in ruling that defendants are entitled to a credit for the settlement amount paid in the earlier lawsuit and that plaintiffs are not entitled to recover as damages the attorneys' fees and expenses they incurred in that litigation. This case is now before us once again. 000. 2 ISD's investment in X Com was unsuccessful. The action was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. 000 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B1E6416438C95FF3882572E300839DF0/$file/0435182.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> IN RE: THE EXXON VALDEZ 6039 ORDER IT IS ORDERED THAT: The opinion in In re Exxon Valdez. 472 F.3d 600 (9th Cir. 2006) is amended as follows: On page 621. Delete the first full paragraph commencing with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/00-1486.htm">00-1486 -- KING V. U.S. -- 09/05/2002 </A> The complaint averred that the Government was negligent in that it knew. Or should have known. That the Pike National Forest in Colorado was in an unusually high condition of combustability and that a fire ban should have been ordered. Id. at 8. The central ruling to this appeal is the dismissal of the Government's cross claim against defendant Wayne Emmett McKillop (McKillop). The cross claim against McKillop alleges he is liable to the Government for damages suffered as a result of a Buffalo Creek fire in the Pike National Forest. The liability of McKillop is averred to arise pursuant to terms of a Term Special Use Permit (the permit) obtained by McKillop from the Forest Service. He is alleged to be liable for damages suffered as a result of the fire. Was as follows. The fire is alleged to have been started by several students of defendant McKillop who were on a field trip supervised by McKillop. The forest fire was started as a result of a camp fire built by the students on the camping trip. Id. at 108. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/11/051114P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Iron Road was joined by other officers including CRST Sergeant Anthony Aungie. Aungie was able to see that the door of Good Low's vehicle was open. Although the latter were obstructed by the alfalfa which was more than two feet high. When Aungie was approximately 100 yards from Good Low's vehicle. Good Low was only a few feet in front of Aungie's vehicle. The district court found that Aungie was negligent for driving at an inappropriate rate of speed in an area where he could not see persons or objects on the ground. South Dakota law does not allow a plaintiff to recover if his or her own negligence is more than slight when compared to the defendant's negligence. Because the district court found that Good Low was negligent and that his negligence was not slight when compared to Aungie's. The government employees at issue in this case are the police officers of the CRST. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/05-7169a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the brief was Laurence Gold. Re Direct insists that it was entitled to the former because Kenneth's conduct </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0505n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was driving on a road behind the plant when she noticed the fire. Which is also required under the company's fire procedures. While Harris was exiting her vehicle. Harris was engulfed in fire and suffered second and third degree burns. Harris and her children filed a complaint in Ohio state court alleging that they were injured due to an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022360.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> $3 million of which was funded through an interim agreement between three insurance companies: St. Benchmark Management is the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE3MDUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1705-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> J.) held that Michigan law shields pharmaceutical companies from products liability claims unless there is. The power of states to govern in this field is considerable and undisputed. 756 (1985) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE3MDUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1705-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> J.) held that Michigan law shields pharmaceutical companies from products liability claims unless there is. The power of states to govern in this field is considerable and undisputed. 756 (1985) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/034013P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was hauling a load of paper from Minnesota to California in his tractor trailer unit. Gilbertson parked his truck on the shoulder (or emergency lane) of the deceleration portion of the exit ramp1 A deceleration lane on a freeway is the initial portion of an exit ramp. Who was riding with him. They were towing a Ford Escort. Was coming up behind the motor home at a speed of nearly ninety miles per hour. The Escort rotated and was briefly sandwiched between the motor home and Alexander's truck before Alexander's truck ran over the top of the Escort. The motor home and MST truck trailer were soon engulfed in flames. All four of the Heatherly children and Carroll Heatherly were rescued. Though Carroll Heatherly was badly injured. Margaret Heatherly was killed in the collision. Inc.2 were dismissed as defendants. Gilbertson's truck was parked very close to the traveled portion of Interstate 80 near the beginning of the deceleration lane. Inc. had originally been sued because of an alleged interest in the truck that Alexander was driving. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/01-5029.htm">01-5029 -- ST. PAUL REINSURANCE CO. V. CLUB SERVICES CORP. -- 02/11/2002 </A> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. In this negligence action. Paul and thought she was fully covered. Wilson's garage was later completely destroyed by fire. Paul was awarded damages of $11. Wilson's bad faith claim should have been considered by the jury as a part of damages incurred by St. The alleged knowledge and acts of the agent at the time of the application [are] not imputed to the principal for purposes of determining whether the principal acted in bad faith. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0697p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> An intraocular lens (IOL) is a lens intended to replace surgically the natural lens of the human eye. Is now legally blind in that eye. ORC moved for summary judgment on the ground that Gile's claims were expressly preempted under the Federal Food. We apply the same test the district court should have utilized initially. Summary judgment is appropriate only when it is demonstrated that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. An issue of material fact is genuine </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0423p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Which is an oral polio vaccine. Poliomyelitis (or polio) is a disease of the central nervous system that causes illness. That this scourge did not continue through the second half of the twentieth century is a credit to the work of several scientists. The Salk vaccine is known as an inactivated polio vaccine ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0976n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> (2) Defendants NAS and SMS Demag were immune under the Kentucky Workers' Compensation Act. The electrode arm was designed to retract and raise out of a melting structure in the event of a power loss. The complaint generally alleged that the Defendants were negligent in failing to monitor and inspect the accident area and to take adequate 2 No. 04 5340 Smith v. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence submitted shows </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053646np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We will affirm the Order of the District Court.1 1 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 2 I. Michelle Williams was employed as an assistant in the payroll department of Cerberus Pyrotronics. Williams admitted that she had defrauded Siemens and was terminated. KPMG notified Siemens of its discovery that Williams had cashed all of the fraudulent checks at one of two local branches of PNC Bank and that the same teller had handled all 639 of the transactions.3 Cerberus was purchased by Siemens following the events giving rise to this litigation. As the parties have done in brief. We will refer to Williams's employer as Siemens throughout this Memorandum. Was not a customer of PNC. Had the discretion to cash noncustomer checks when she had reason to believe they were backed by sufficient funds. PNC was unable to locate. Was otherwise unaware of. Though PNC claims that Tanner's dismissal was prompted by the discovery of a $5. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0333BD942E7EA5AA8825724C0059D92E/$file/0435182.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> We are precluded. As the jury was. From punishing Exxon for befouling the beautiful region where the oil was spilled. The plaintiffs' punitive damages case was saved from preemption and res judicata because the award </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1E1C3AFF936829B4882572F1007D223B/$file/0535916.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Robert Lesman1 is the owner and captain of the Sunset Charge and was Gruver's direct supervisor during the time Gruver worked on the boat. Gruver was owed some wages. While the check was in transit. Gruver demanded the money and warned that he would hurt Lesman and damage the Sunset Charge if he was not paid. Gruver again called Lesman and left a message threatening Lesman and his property if the full amount of wages owed to him was not paid. Gruver was lying in his bunk on the Adventurous. Lesman claims he was attempting to give Gruver a check for the remainder of his wages and that Gruver attacked him. Lesman eventually was arrested. Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981835.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant Betty Little was injured while sitting at one of the concrete tables in an outdoor cafe area of a building operated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001118.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: We are presented with the question of whether the Federal Tort Claims Act. Asserting that he was suffering from a medical emergency. Federal employees operating the hospital refused to treat White or to refill his oxygen tank because he was not Indian. He was in extreme respiratory distress. The complaint alleges that White's death was caused by the Cherokee Indian Hospital's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1998/98a1958p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> This is a long arm service of process case which requires us. The complaint alleges that Kiekert tortiously interfered with 2 Imo's attempt to sell its wholly owned Italian subsidiary to a French corporation that was one of Kiekert's competitors. The asserted mechanism by which the tort was accomplished was a series of letters sent by Kiekert to the Italian subsidiary and to the New York investmentfirm of C.S. The sale was never consummated because of these threats. Imo contends that personal jurisdiction over Kiekert was proper based upon its contacts with Imo in New Jersey and upon Kiekert's claimed commission of an intentional tort. The effects of which were allegedly felt by Imo in New Jersey. The defendant must have committed an intentional tort. The plaintiff must have felt the brunt of the harm caused by that tort in the forum. The defendant must have expressly aimed his tortious conduct at the forum. The order of the district court will therefore be affirmed. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that personal jurisdiction is proper. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914220.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This is an interlocutory appeal from a grant of class certification. Certified against all defendants a class of all persons who are or have been Plan participants or beneficiaries from 1983 through the present. I. The facts surrounding this appeal are straightforward. The Plan is funded by employee contributions and fifteen percent of EBSCO's annual profits. We will refer to both entities as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2001/99-14220.opn.html">PIAZZA V. EBSCO INDUS. (11/30/2001, NO. 99-14220) </A> Circuit Judge: </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044146np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We will affirm. We recite only those facts and aspects of the procedural history that are of particular pertinence to our analysis. Bosco was working at the Marine Ocean Terminal in Bayonne. It was raining heavily at the time. The District Court also dismissed Bosco's claim that the government was negligent in failing to maintain and enforce a parking policy. Which is not actionable under the FTCA 1 Bosco also claimed the government was negligent in failing to have a policy mandating routine maintenance of its buildings and grounds and in failing to have a policy requiring superior officers to keep records of accidents. The only negligence theory that survived the November 10 order was the theory that the government was negligent in failing to properly maintain the sewer system. Bosco's expert opined at trial that the only explanation for the puddle surrounding the grate on which Bosco fell was a blockage in the sewer system. Bosco contended the government was negligent in failing to remove the supposed blockage. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2001/99-14220.opn.html">PIAZZA V. EBSCO INDUS. (11/30/2001, NO. 99-14220) </A> Circuit Judge: </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1648.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> To defraud Milgray by purchasing components from a company named Microcomp that Gnat and Slupik had created and were operating in violation of their duty to their employer. The company may have been careless in failing to discover the bribes sooner. It may even have known about the bribes but not cared because it thought it was getting a good price and excellent service Nos. 03 1648. That is a matter of fierce dispute but Williams does admit being aware that some of its suppliers. Were giving gift certificates ranging from $25 to $500 to its employees at Christmas time. Provided that any gift in excess of $100 was disclosed to and approved by a company audit board. Except that buyers (such as Barry) were forbidden to accept any gift. The cash bribes received by Barry were not considered by either donor or recipient to be Christmas gifts. Commercial bribery is a garden variety of fraud. Here consisting of the suppliers' concealing from Williams the fact that they were bribing its buyer. He instructed the jury that if Williams had known or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1865.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief for appellee. Claiming that it was unlawfully deprived of the right to use seaplane ramps in the Virgin Islands and that the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) failure to enforce the law makes it responsible for the company's resulting economic hardship. I. Background The original protagonist in this case was Hurricane Hugo. One of the eight companies that responded was 1 Congress in 1994 recodified the Federal Aviation Act. Will use the code numbers in effect at the time of the events that gave rise to this action. 2 Caribbean Air Services. It is undisputed that VIPA's staff considered the CAS proposal to be the most viable of the three bids recommended for further consideration by VIPA's Governing Board. Are fully detailed in the district court's thorough opinion in a related case. It is unnecessary to repeat them here. It suffices to say that appellant Sea Air was displeased with the outcome of the bid process. With the court ruling in March 1992 that VIPA was entitled to enter into an exclusive leasing arrangement with CAI. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3817_024.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> A third party computer </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6991788B7688EED2882571290081703C/$file/0335333.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Shields is not entitled to qualified immunity. I. Introduction The following initial facts are undisputed. There are indeed facts which the parties dispute. She told Shields that the Burns family was unstable. Though the investigation concluded he was not responsible. RIDGEFIELD 2233 handling the case that she was anxious to have the investigation started. The officer responsible for the case was out. Shields claims he did so because the Burns house was on the way to the Kennedy's. Kennedy called a friend because she was very frightened of what Michael's and his mother's reactions would be. Shields had told her Angela was very angry after their conversation and that she and Michael had begun to yell at one another. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. We must then determine whether Shields is entitled to such immunity. Conclude we have jurisdiction to determine whether the trial court erred in holding Shields was not entitled to qualified immunity. [1] As a general rule. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/991378.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: Admiralty law is considered one of the most complex areas of American law. We are now asked to resolve some of the problems arising from the Supreme Court's holding problems that the Court itself recognized by ruling upon two distinct questions that the Court expressly declined to decide. Ltd. will be defined. Calhoun: Is Yamaha a Cry by the Judiciary for Legislative Action in State Territorial Waters? We will affirm in part and reverse in part. Holding instead that federal maritime law must govern the standards by which Yamaha's liability will be evaluated. Natalie died when the Yamaha1 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/003919P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> NAICO denied coverage under an automobile liability insurance policy when a tractor trailer owned by Rapid and leased to CRST was involved in an accident. CRST and Lincoln are subsidiaries of CRST International. Rapid is a subsidiary of Lincoln. Both policies were renewed. United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. 32 1 Calvin Veasley was a Lincoln employee on loan to CRST as a tractor trailer driver. Veasley was a passenger in the tractor trailer when it was involved in an accident. He was seriously injured. Holding that Rapid and Lincoln were a single entity. That both were Veasley's employer. A tort action was barred by the workers compensation law. Which reversed and held that Rapid was a separate entity. That Rapid was subject to suit.3 Rapid advised NAICO of Mr. NAICO stated that coverage was denied because Lincoln. Which is defined as loss sustained by the Insured on account of liability imposed upon the Insured by law for damages. Alleging that NAICO acted in bad faith and was stubbornly litigious. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4D355D5CCD3AF21988256B3E000044D5/$file/0035838.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> The exception is Plaintiff's claim that the Government negligently failed to discharge a nondiscretionary duty to perform a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1833.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> The check was presented to Schwab for deposit by a man who called himself James M. Whom investigators have been unable to track down ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-1320a.htm">98-1320A -- SCOTT V. HERN -- 06/06/2000 </A> Circuit Judges. <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0426p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Plaintiff appellant Teresa Anne Henderson brings suit alleging she was subjected to sexual harassment by her high school soccer coach. The school district and several school administration officials are liable for sexual harassment. The defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted by the district court because plaintiff had failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact on any of her claims. After he was interviewed and references were contacted and a criminal background investigation was completed. Crawford was hired and commenced coaching in February 2002.1 From the outset. He made it clear to team members and their parents that he was in charge. Was told by Crawford that she would not be the captain during the 2002 season because she had an attitude. He would often invite players to his home for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/031865P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> His product of choice was Beech Nut. Which was manufactured by Lorillard Tobacco Company and later acquired in 1988 by National Tobacco Company. Tuttle was diagnosed with oral cancer. Tuttle's claims are legally insufficient. Tuttle has remarried and is now named Gloria Tuttle Fisher. 2 1 mass as parotitis2 and prescribed an antibiotic and Advil for discomfort. Koutroupas also noted Tuttle was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/164F3F0966B78CC388257028008029A9/$file/0335333.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: Defendant Noel Shields appeals the district court's ruling that he is not entitled to summary judgment against Plaintiff Kimberly Kennedy's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Conclude the district court correctly determined that Shields is not entitled to qualified immunity. Kennedy claims to have warned Shields of Michael Burns's violent tendencies at the September 6 meeting. She told Shields that the Burns family was unstable and that she had seen a lot of violence in their home. It is undisputed that Shields had no contact with Kennedy between the September 6 meeting and September 24. That the investigation concluded that he was not responsible. Kennedy asserts that she expressed concerns about her safety and told the CAIC officer handling the investigation that she was anxious to have the investigation started. The content of this message is disputed. There was a message from Kennedy inquiring about his contact with Angela Burns and the status of the molestation case. The officer responsible for the case was out so Shields left a message. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/06/971831P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Donald Alholm was injured during docking operations in Duluth. The jury found that both American Steamship and Alholm were negligent. Judgment was entered in Alholm's favor against American Steamship for $633. United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 22 1 Alholm was injured while working as a deckhand for the ship M/V Sam Laud. Which was owned by American Steamship. On arrival in Duluth the ship was docked improperly. Crew members were required to move the docked ship forward. The ordinary procedure for moving an incorrectly docked ship is for deckhands to attach the ship's front cable to a forward spile. Once the ship is in the correct place. The cables are fastened to the proper spiles. As the ship was moved forward with the winch. It let out length in the non pulling cables so that their weight was increased. The lengthened cable was very heavy. Alholm testified that while he was holding the cable he felt his back straining. He was treated there on four occasions. He returned to work on June 27 even though his back was still sore. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/07/003147P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This appeal revolves around a loan that was made by Brenton First National Bank (the Bank) to Audio Odyssey. Sitting by designation. 1 Ann Dincer (Audio Odyssey and the Dincers are referred to collectively as Audio Odyssey). The loan was guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Insofar as is possible. The Dincers executed an SBA Note which stated: This promissory note is given to secure a loan which SBA is making or in which it is participating and. This instrument is to be construed and (when SBA is the Holder or a party in interest) enforced in accordance with applicable Federal law. The Authorization and Loan Agreement provides that it is subject to the provisions of the 1978 Guaranty Agreement. The loan was secured with. Who was responsible for managing the SBA's guaranteed loan program in the eastern 29 counties of Iowa. That it was overdrawn on its checking account. Bradley also told Hoffman that Audio Odyssey was going to hold a sale that weekend and Bradley feared that the profits would be applied to the withholding tax Audio Odyssey owed rather than to the loan from the Bank. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb96/94-9373.opa.html">MICHAEL V. NORFOLK S. RWY. CO. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Michael v. Norfolk was sued by representatives of an automobile driver and passenger who were killed in a collision with a Norfolk train. The District Court ruled that the automobile driver was the sole proximate cause of the accident. That the plaintiffs' state law negligence claims were preempted by federal law. Weaver's automobile was travelling at a high rate of speed prior to the collision. The plaintiffs presented evidence that the she was travelling at five to ten miles per hour. The defendant contends that at the time of the accident visibility was clear. There is some evidence that the weather was extremely foggy. Weaver may have been impaired at the time of the accident. The plaintiffs argue that she was not impaired. It is undisputed that the train crew sounded the train's horn and bell. That the train's headlight was working prior to the collision. That the crossing warning devices were working immediately after the collision. The plaintiffs contend that the warning devices at the Mulberry Street crossing have malfunctioned on a continuous and chronic basis. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb96/94-9373.opa.html">MICHAEL V. NORFOLK S. RWY. CO. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Michael v. Norfolk was sued by representatives of an automobile driver and passenger who were killed in a collision with a Norfolk train. The District Court ruled that the automobile driver was the sole proximate cause of the accident. That the plaintiffs' state law negligence claims were preempted by federal law. Weaver's automobile was travelling at a high rate of speed prior to the collision. The plaintiffs presented evidence that the she was travelling at five to ten miles per hour. The defendant contends that at the time of the accident visibility was clear. There is some evidence that the weather was extremely foggy. Weaver may have been impaired at the time of the accident. The plaintiffs argue that she was not impaired. It is undisputed that the train crew sounded the train's horn and bell. That the train's headlight was working prior to the collision. That the crossing warning devices were working immediately after the collision. The plaintiffs contend that the warning devices at the Mulberry Street crossing have malfunctioned on a continuous and chronic basis. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3651.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was an insulin dependent diabetic and known to be such by his coworkers many of whom. Were medical workers. When his coworkers noticed that he was in one of his hypoglycemic states. Who was complaining about feeling ill and said that he wanted to go home. Was having one of his hypoglycemic episodes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1820.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Corey was on brief for Roy R. Phelan and Fitzhugh & Associates were on brief for Sun Company. Was on the property after the leak was discovered. Monitoring wells were installed and samples of groundwater were taken and analyzed. Whose name was given on the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-8028.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Bad faith arising from Mid Continent's failure to defend True Oil and pay for its liability resulting (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Or expense arising under either (i) or (ii) from: (A) The sole or concurrent negligence of the indemnitee or the agents or employees of the indemnitee or any independent contractor who is directly responsible to such indemnitee. Are against public policy and are void and unenforceable to the extent that such contract of indemnity by its terms purports to relieve the indemnitee from loss or liability for his own negligence. The statute was likely a response to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-60664.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * 1 appeal the district court's judgment in favor of Pennsylvania National National </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200607/04-7149a.pdf">O:\2005-2006 TERM\09-26-05 SITTING\04-7149 NOVAK V. CAPTL MGMT CORP\OPINION\04-7149 OPINION DRAFT 19.WPD </A> With him on the briefs were Jonathan E. Circuit Judge: Twelve to fifteen thugs criminally attacked and permanently injured appellants Dominic Novak and George Valdivia as they were leaving a bar and dance club in the District of Columbia. The attack occurred late at night in an alley that was immediately outside the only exit from the club and was the most common path for departing patrons. The District Court concluded there was no such duty because the club did not exercise </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/aug1999/985045.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> We find that it was appropriate. We agree with the District Court that as a matter of law defendants owed no duty to plaintiff and that the World 3 Trade Center bombing was not proximately caused by defendants' actions. We reject plaintiff's argument that the issues of duty and proximate causation were jury issues not properly decided by the court on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Factual Background The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is the owner of the World Trade Center in New York City. Nitric acid used in the bomb were allegedly sold in New Jersey. The bomb was allegedly assembled in New Jersey by New Jersey residents. Are alleged to have manufactured. Defendant Arcadian Corporation is alleged to have manufactured. Alleged to have been purchased by the terrorists. Were sold in prill form. The prills were manufactured to be used as fertilizer. The terrorists are alleged to have rendered the prills explosive by adding these substances. The prills are not explosive in and of themselves. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/98-4739.man.html">PIAMBA CORTES V. AM. AIRLINES (6/15/1999, NO. 98-4739) </A> The passengers' claims for damages were not limited by Article 25's liability cap. A domiciliary of Colombia who was returning home after studying in the United States. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul14/03-60664.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * 1 appeal the district court's judgment in favor of Pennsylvania National National </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/06/972502P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Bryan Robertson was using a Black & Decker heavy duty power sander/grinder on a concrete bridge in Mountain View. The jury found that the accident was proximately caused by defendants' conduct in manufacturing and selling the grinding wheel in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition. The issues are (1) whether the district court erred in admitting expert testimony that defendants' product warnings were inadequate. Robertson had worked on bridges for over five years and was familiar with the Black & Decker grinder. Norton grinding wheels were purchased separately from the grinder and bore a warning label stating: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/98-4739.man.html">PIAMBA CORTES V. AM. AIRLINES (6/15/1999, NO. 98-4739) </A> The passengers' claims for damages were not limited by Article 25's liability cap. A domiciliary of Colombia who was returning home after studying in the United States. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-3239.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> This is the latest in a long string of lawsuits Franklin has brought against the government asserting claims in connection with the government's seizure. 35 F.3d 1466 (10th Cir. 1994)(holding OTS's decision to change the RTC's function from conservator to receiver was not subject to judicial review) [Franklin II ]. 180 F.3d 1124 (10th Cir. 1999) (holding that Franklin's negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims against the RTC and the FDIC were barred bythe discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act) [Franklin III]. These claims were also dismissed. Finding the claims were barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. We conclude Franklin's claims are time barred and. BACKGROUND The complete history of Franklin's litigation against the government is set forth in numerous published opinions. The RTC was appointed conservator of FSA in 1990. The RTC's function was converted from conservator to receiver in 1992. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (3) The United States may not be sued absent a waiver of its sovereign immunity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115127.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> At issue is a Work Order and Ship Repair Contract (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/91CF74C66F93FAF588256E78007C52FC/$file/0016986.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> This is a statute of limitations case. The issue is when a cause of action accrued for purposes of the statute of limitations under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The action is for miscalculation of parole. With consequent imprisonment of a person who should have been released. He was convicted in 1984 for conspiracy to manufacture and attempt to manufacture methaqualone. He was sentenced to three years. Erlin was convicted in 1988 of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. The ten year sentence was not subject to parole. The probation on The crime was pre Sentencing Guidelines. So the sentencing terminology and rules were different from what they are now. The differences have no bearing on this case. UNITED STATES 5145 Erlin's 1984 conviction was revoked. He was released February 17. His release was pursuant to a statute then in effect providing for mandatory release at the expiration of the term. With the prisoner deemed to be on parole thereafter until the expiration of the term to which he was sentenced less 180 days.3 Erlin again failed to comply with conditions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/10/03-3239.htm">03-3239 -- FRANKLIN SAVINGS CORP. V. U.S. -- 10/07/2004 </A> This is the latest in a long string of lawsuits Franklin has brought against the government asserting claims in connection with the government's seizure. Finding the claims were barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. We conclude Franklin's claims are time barred and. BACKGROUND</center> The complete history of Franklin's litigation against the government is set forth in numerous published opinions. The RTC was appointed conservator of FSA in 1990. The RTC's function was converted from . Asserting the discretionary function exception to the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity applied.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2314.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Cavanagh & Cooney were on brief for defendants. Decof & Grimm were on brief for plaintiff. Arthur LaPlante was rendered quadriplegic from a fall sustained while riding an all terrain vehicle (ATV) designed. This amount was reduced to $8. If Honda is found liable on retrial. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. The course of Arthur LaPlante's life was dramatically and irreversibly altered. This ATV is a three wheeled motorized vehicle intended for off road use. Was the third to ride after Kallhoff and Leib. When plaintiff was unable to negotiate a left hand turn onto a twelve foot wide dirt road. The trial was bifurcated so that the issue of punitive damages could be tried after the issues of liability and compensatory damages. The jury also found that plaintiff was comparatively negligent. Or damage was a subsequent alteration or modification. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept95/94-3167.html">CARL V. CITY OF OVERLAND PARK </A> Or (2) that any breach was the proximate cause of Nelson's death. Officer Williams was on routine patrol in a residential area when he noticed a car occupied by two individuals. The driver was Carl's 16 year old son Nelson. Who had borrowed the car from a third party and was driving without a license. Officer Williams claims that the car caught his attention because it had a defective headlight and was weaving within its lane. Informed the OPPD that he was initiating pursuit. The road was dry and well lit. The PVPD was informed of the pursuit and two PVPD patrol cars began following Nelson's course. Nelson's passenger was thrown from the car and died soon thereafter. Nelson was pronounced dead at the scene. The purpose of SOP 100 13 is to provide officers with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/054234P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Lester was arrested for the sodomy and attempted rape of Kelly. 1 Strnad died in 1993. 2 Kelly sued Dr. Strnad and Kelly that sought to establish that American Home did not have a duty to defend or indemnify Dr. Strnad was subject to an insurance policy exclusion that barred coverage and therefore American Home did not have a duty to defend or indemnify Dr. American Home appeals the district court's post dismissal ruling that Kelly's counterclaim for equitable garnishment was permissive and could be re filed in state court. Who was then five years old and had been living with the Popes as a foster child for the two previous years. Strnad and Ray were negligent per se in violating the Missouri mandatoryreporting statute and that they breached a common law duty to warn of the danger of further abuse by Lester. We hold that when a psychologist or other health care professional knows or . . . should have known that a patient presents a serious danger of future violence to a readily identifiable victim the psychologist has a duty under Missouri common law to warn the intended victim or communicate the existence of such danger to those likely to warn the victim including notifying appropriate enforcement authorities. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/01-4248.htm">01-4248 -- BOYD V. JONES -- 12/18/2003 </A> DJP had represented Boyd in an unrelated suit that had been dismissed from state court for failure to prosecute. The federal district court found that Boyd's complaint of legal malpractice against DJP was time barred. It then found that the applicable four year statute of limitations for tort claims in Utah began to run when Boyd was initially notified of the alleged malpractice by the dismissal of his state suit by the trial court for failure to prosecute. Which in this case was after the appeal time had expired. Boyd's claim for legal malpractice against DJP was filed within four years of that date and so it was timely. Boyd is an attorney in his own right who brought suit for alleged malpractice against Jeffery M. His motion for reconsideration was denied. DJP unsuccessfully appealed the dismissal. Relief was denied by the Utah Court of Appeals on September 26. Care and diligence to pursue the [lawsuit in state court]. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0184n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Appeals a determination he was negligent in causing a fire aboard his houseboat that spread and damaged seventeen vessels at the marina where he docked. Hartley argues that: (1) the district court's finding of negligence was clearly erroneous. (3) the district court erred to the extent liability was based on unseaworthiness. We affirm the district court because its finding of negligence was not clearly erroneous and the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings. Hartley's vessel was unseaworthy. The finding of negligence is sufficient to support the judgment of liability and any error regarding the doctrine of seaworthiness is therefore harmless. Patricia Hughes were awakened by an explosion at the Pier 99 Marina. Was burning. While the exterior hulls of the boats on either side were on fire. After the fire was put out. The M/V Nina's Casino was a 65 foot seagoing houseboat docked at slip 33 of the Pier 99 Marina. Two of which were identified by experts as possible causes of the fire.2 The first was an electric space heater kept in the main cabin of the boat. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1134.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief. Were on brief. Saying the evidence showed neither negligence nor foreseeability and that certain evidentiary rulings were in error. It argues it was unfairly prejudiced by the exclusion of evidence of a cardiac event suffered by plaintiff two weeks before trial. While defendant was responsible only for the aggravation of a pre existing condition. Stevens responsible for 10%. 2 2 The jury could reasonably have believed the facts to be as follows: On a winter morning in northern Maine. There was a train derailment on the main line to the Millinocket Yard of the Railroad. The Millinocket Yard is an important junction point. Were asked to get lengths of rail to repair the damaged track. The rail was kept in the X 198 railcar. Different weights of thirty nine foot lengths of rail were piled in the car. The rails were in disarray. Their surface was uneven and there were 2. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-1320.htm">98-1320 -- SCOTT V. HERN -- 06/06/2000 </A> 1983 claim is satisfied when a licensed physician submits an affidavit to law enforcement officials in support of involuntary commitment. We affirm the remaining aspects of the district court's judgment. <center>I</center> Scott is an anti abortion activist who frequently demonstrated in front of an abortion clinic in Boulder. How many days do you have left? The Lord showed me you have less than one year. Scott was a survivalist and expert marksman who. Stated that Scott </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/02/032307P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> McGuire fell from a six foot stepladder and was seriously injured. The cause of the fall is contested by the parties. Louisville Ladder contends that the breaks in the side rails were caused by McGuire landing on top of the ladder after he fell. There was no eyewitness as to the cause of the accident. Was leaving the room at the time of the fall and testified that he turned around in time to see McGuire's head strike the floor. (3) Louisville Ladder was at fault under a theory of general negligence. The jury found both Louisville Ladder and McGuire were 50% responsible and assessed McGuire's damages at $623. Arguing that McGuire failed to prove the accident was not caused by his own voluntary actions. Louisville Ladder contended that McGuire was required to satisfy the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep22/03-41260-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: Primarily at issue is whether. Criminally negligent homicide under Texas law is equivalent to manslaughter and. The two offenses are not District Judge of the Northern District of Texas. The enhancement is VACATED. The case is REMANDED for I. He pleaded guilty in April 2002 to criminally negligent homicide and was sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment. Dominguez (a Mexican citizen) was released in November 2002 and deported to Mexico in January 2003. He was found by Border Patrol Agents near Alamo. The district 8 U.S.C. §§ claiming that offense was not a crime of violence. court overruled the objection and sentenced Dominguez. Dominguez claims the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1043.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> LLP were on brief. Was on brief. Are chronicled in the district court's opinion. We have often preached. We resist the temptation to repastinate ground that is already well ploughed and affirm principally on the basis of the district court's opinion. Similar issues are entitled to considerable deference. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001021.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Young Sergio was thrown from a 1985 Dodge Caravan through the open liftgate and killed. Was driving the vehicle on an errand with her 8 year old daughter Maria riding in the front seat and young Sergio in the back seat. She drove through a red light and was struck in the left rear by an oncoming car traveling at 30 m.p.h. Who was not wearing a seatbelt. Was thrown through the rear liftgate that had opened during the accident. Both of whom were wearing seatbelts. Were not seriously injured. Negligent design under South Carolina law were allowed to go to the jury. The Estate asserted that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200701/05-7162a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs were Robert J. With her on the brief were Michael D. Exxon argues that the district court should have granted the motion to dismiss because the plaintiffs' claims are non justiciable political questions. We need not reach the merits of Exxon's arguments because we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal. We deny this petition because Exxon has not established a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2002/01-14463.opn.html">SMITH V. UNITED PARCEL SERV. (7/11/2002, NO. 01-14463) </A> Who is legally blind. Asserted repeatedly that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8F8B293F4A9CD8EB882570CE005A27CD/$file/0216947.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Plant diseasecausing fungi are rarely the subject of casual dinner conversation. Scab are extremely serious matters. Benlate was one of DuPont's most successful commercial products. Who are commercial nurserymen. Many similar suits were filed by commercial growers across the nation. It became clear that DuPont had not revealed to Plaintiffs during discovery damaging test results that indicated that Benlate was indeed contaminated with SUs. There are three different categories of tests concealed. The settlement between Fuku Bonsai and DuPont was approved by the bankruptcy court on May 16. DUPONT DE NEMOURS 15643 by Alta Analytical Laboratories ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/03/022594P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> He was thrown violently from his motorcycle when it twisted beneath him. He contends that the accident was a direct result of a defect in the surface of the railroad crossing. It is constructed of component rubber parts manufactured by Goodyear. Alumbaugh was severely and permanently injured. If there is any reasonable construction of the facts which would entitle the nonmoving party to prevail. A grant of summary judgment will not be sustained. I. Since Missouri is the forum state. Which states that the liability of a party in tort is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2AA05E40489FD5E888256F18007CB585/$file/0335032.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in a personal injury action. Kuntz was severely injured when a metal rod he was removing from a billboard came in contact with an electric transmission line operated by defendant Kootenai Electric Cooperative. Because some of its members are citizens of Washington. As is Kuntz. The Cooperative claims that complete diversity of citizenship is lacking. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm the judgment of the district court in all respects. Kuntz was an independent contractor in the business of removing and replacing advertising placards on billboards. This billboard had a vinyl sign that was secured by 14 metal rods. The Cooperative is a cooperative marketing association organized to generate and distribute electric power to its members. The Cooperative is incorporated in the State of Idaho and has its principal place of business there. After the reconstruction project was completed. The conductor nearest to the billboard was eight feet from the billboard.1 The Cooperative did not warn Lamar or Kuntz that a conductor was closer to the billboard than before the reconAnother. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981516.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Burris's Charlotte plant is located adjacent to CSX Transportation. Which was still under construction at the time of the accident. 2 Sometime prior to the date of the accident. Outhwaite visually inspected the hand brakes on the car and noted that they were fully set and holding. Outhwaite fully released the brake and then reset it so that the brake was close to but not fully </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2002/01-14463.opn.html">SMITH V. UNITED PARCEL SERV. (7/11/2002, NO. 01-14463) </A> Who is legally blind. Asserted repeatedly that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1306.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Little with whom Law Offices David Efr n was on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellees. Plaintiffs appellants are six TORRUELLA. Was the victim of a stabbing. Celso was stabbed by his brother. Who is not a party to the suit. The family members filed a civil rights damages action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1994) against two officers of the Puerto Rico Police Department alleging that the officers' failure to enforce a temporary detention order against Francisco caused the injury to Celso and thus violated his constitutional rights.1 The district court held that plaintiffs failed to establish that a due process right protected under section 1983 was violated by the officers' failure to prevent private violence. Where the ultimate harm is caused by a third party. A nephew of both Celso and Francisco who is not a party in the instant suit. 2 to have his uncle Francisco involuntarily detained for psychiatric examination. If the examining doctor concludes that detention for any longer period or treatment of the subject is required. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053288p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We will reverse and remand. I. Appellee Sandy Lane Hotel Company is a Barbados corporation. Its sole business is the operation of the Sandy Lane Hotel in St. The O'Connors also argued that Sandy Lane is subject to general jurisdiction in Pennsylvania. App. 304 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1197.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> P.C. were on brief. (PTL) on the ground that Flibotte's claims were preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. We are unable to do so. That he refused </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july95/94-2516.opa.html">LOHR V. MEDTRONIC, INC. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lohr v. We hold that Appellants' negligent manufacture and failure to warn claims are preempted and affirm their dismissal. We also hold that Appellants' negligent design and strict liability claims are not preempted and therefore reverse their dismissal. I. BACKGROUND Because an understanding of the MDA's regulatory scheme is necessary to resolve the question of preemption. We begin with a brief outline of the Act. A. The Regulatory Scheme The market for medical devices was largely unregulated at the national level until the MDA's passage in 1976. The text of the MDA reveals two competing congressional purposes relevant to this case:<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2001/99-14019.man.html">BUNGE CORP. V. FREEPORT MARINE REPAIR (1/30/2001, NO. 99-14019) </A> FACTS</CENTER> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-5395a.html">MITTLEMAN ELAINE V. USA </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/95-1085.wpd.html">OJA V. HOWMEDICA, INC. </A> The section headings are incorrectly labeled. A corrected version of the opinion is attached for your convenience. (2) the jury's finding of negligent failure to warn is inconsistent with its verdict for Howmedica on the strict liability and negligence claims. (4) punitive damages cannot be awarded as a matter of law because the evidence was insufficient to show that Howmedica acted wantonly or recklessly. Because we conclude that the jury's finding of negligent failure to warn is irreconcilably inconsistent with its verdict for Howmedica on the strict liability claim. BACKGROUND The Porous Coated Anatomic One Piece Acetabular Component hip ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914019.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> I. FACTS Freeport manufactured and owned a casino vessel ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july95/94-2516.opa.html">LOHR V. MEDTRONIC, INC. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lohr v. We hold that Appellants' negligent manufacture and failure to warn claims are preempted and affirm their dismissal. We also hold that Appellants' negligent design and strict liability claims are not preempted and therefore reverse their dismissal. I. BACKGROUND Because an understanding of the MDA's regulatory scheme is necessary to resolve the question of preemption. We begin with a brief outline of the Act. A. The Regulatory Scheme The market for medical devices was largely unregulated at the national level until the MDA's passage in 1976. The text of the MDA reveals two competing congressional purposes relevant to this case:<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991124.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appellee contends he was subjected to severe disciplinary action. Is not a party to this appeal. 2 In his motion to remand. Appellants argued that Appellee's negligence claim was actually an unfair representation claim against his co workers in their capacities as union officials. Although the court agreed with Appellee that Appellants were not sued in their capacities as union officials. The order is reviewable as a final judgment because it terminated all proceedings in federal court. 1408 (11th Cir. 1997) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914019.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> I. FACTS Freeport manufactured and owned a casino vessel ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/03/991388P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> I. Patrick Shea died of a heart attack at the age of 40 after being assured by his family doctors that a referral to a cardiologist was unnecessary given his age and symptoms. The Secretary of Labor is charged with interpreting and enforcing all provisions of Title I of ERISA. Shea's physicians were designed to minimize referrals to specialists. He would not have trusted his physicians' medical advice so completely but would have sought out the life saving opinion of a specialist at his own expense. Shea's tort claims were preempted by ERISA. Shea's state tort claims against Medica as the plan administrator were preempted by ERISA and that the amended complaint asserting a breach of fiduciary duty failed to state a claim. It is not at issue in this appeal. After this appeal was filed. Shea's medical negligence claim of count I was brought to trial in state court where a jury resolved the claim in favor of the defendants. Shea would not be able to prove that her husband was denied appropriate care. Which they assert is an essential element of Mrs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2001/99-14019.man.html">BUNGE CORP. V. FREEPORT MARINE REPAIR (1/30/2001, NO. 99-14019) </A> FACTS</CENTER> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2877_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Both airplanes were receiving air traffic services from Meigs Field Air Traffic Control Tower. Renee Toone was staffing the air traffic control tower at Meigs Field. The parties assume that Toone's failure to inform the pilots of the two planes that they were on a collision course was the cause of the fatal crash. Most of the state court cases were settled. One was tried. Who at the time of the 1 They were Paul Alinsky. Et al. 3 collision was communicating with Toone about a landing gear problem. Arguing the United States had a non delegable duty to provide air traffic control services and was thus responsible for Toone's negligence. The plaintiffs also alleged the United States was liable for its own negligence by allowing an allegedly untrained and unqualified controller to staff Meigs tower. The plaintiffs alleged that the United States was liable because it negligently delayed approving additional staffing at Meigs. The plaintiffs' cases were consolidated. Each of which was docketed two days later. As the final judgment form was inadvertently attached to the last page of the corresponding Memorandum Opinion and Order. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1873.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Of which Edwards was part owner and later sole owner. Which was John Hancock's trustee on the deeds of trust to Saval's ranches. That the issue is properly before us. There is no dispute that the alleged tort underinclusive description of Saval's properties in connection with the 1985 foreclosure sale occurred in Nevada and that Edwards resided in Massachusetts at that time. Since this is not a continuing tort. The district court should have transferred the claims to another forum which would have personal jurisdiction over these eight non corporate defendants. Which provides that whenever a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19953377.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Plaintiffs/appellees/cross appellants ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0302p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Which was less than three feet deep at the point of Mr. His spinal column between the C4 and C5 levels was severed on impact. Realizing that her husband was in trouble. Screamed that he was not breathing. Sagan's breathing was impeded by water in his lungs. The United States Coast Guard arrived by boat and informed those present that a rescue helicopter was on its way and would take Mr. Sagan was secured to a backboard on the deck of the Algonac Fire and Rescue boat. Sagan immediately be taken to a hospital via an ambulance that was waiting a mile away from the boats. It was determined that the backboard to which Mr. Sagan had been secured was incompatible with the device needed to lift him to the helicopter. Sagan was transferred to the ambulance at approximately 1:46 a.m. He was unable to breathe effectively without ventilator assistance. Only to learn that they were in the wrong place. 1 No. 01 2568 Sagan. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/024429p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was injured on August 7. At issue in this appeal is whether Marino. Who was working with riggers on a task associated with the construction project at the time of his injury. Because our jurisdiction is based on the diversity of citizenship of the parties. As Marino is a citizen of New York. ICR is a New Jersey corporation with its principal offices in Mahwah. The amount in our task is to predict how the courts of New Jersey would resolve this issue if presented with these facts. As the courts of New Jersey have spoken on this general issue several times. We have recently addressed this issue applying New Jersey law. Marino was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516659.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The appellants (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1100.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> Massey was incarcerated at FCI Pekin from March 26. Such a warning was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1876.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Beliveau & Pachios was on brief for appellant. Ashley & Bull was on brief for appellee Rodney A. With whom Hale & Hamlin was on brief for appellee Young Brothers & Company. Before us is Vernay's appeal of the district court's judgment. Also before us is Sullivan's cross appeal of the district court's finding that Young Brothers was not liable. Almost verbatim from the district court's detailed opinion. 2 The SEA FEVER is a forty foot. Which was composed. Which is a manufacturer of various fiberglass components of marine wet exhaust systems. Was the parts supplier from which Young Brothers purchased the Vernatube installed aboard the SEA FEVER. The SEA FEVER's wet exhaust system was constructed with a fifteen foot length of Vernatube. Because Vernatube is sold in ten foot lengths. This span of Vernatube was connected to the engine at the exhaust manifold by a flexible rubber hose and rigidly installed in the hull of the vessel by fiberglass where the Vernatube passed through the fish hold bulkhead. It was also fiberglassed to each of the two bulkheads and the transom 1 Sullivan's complaint included claims against H & H Propeller under theories of strict liability and breach of express and implied warranties. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1823.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> Gil is a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution at Oxford. Is not for the squeamish. James Reed is a physician who serves as clinical director at FCI Oxford. Jaime Penaflor is a physician's assistant at that same facility. Gil was incarcerated at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Chicago ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1432.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> They point to other Massachusetts authority that permits a plaintiff to recover for harm caused by such behavior even though the plaintiff is not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/95-5516.opa.html">FORGIONE V. DENNIS PIRTLE AGENCY </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Forgione v. Is a claim for negligence by an insured against an insurance agent for failure to obtain proper insurance coverage assignable? Because we are unable to find any authoritative decision from the Florida courts answering the question. Was involved in an automobile accident with a vehicle owned by Harry and Lena Tofel. Forgione was unable to satisfy that judgment completely. The Tofels assigned (or attempted to assign) to Forgione all the rights and claims they have against the insurance companies and agents through whom they obtained their insurance coverage. Those companies and agents are the defendants and appellees in this lawsuit.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1998/98a1861p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> The district court ruled that this suit under ERISA was barred under New Jersey's entire controversy doctrine because Fornarotto's previously filed tort action was sufficiently related to the instant action to trigger application of that doctrine. For the reasons that follow we will reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Fornarotto was employed by the New Jersey American Water Company (a subsidiary of American Waterworks Company. Fornarotto was eligible to participate in the company's pension plan which provided different levels of benefits to eligible employees. The employee becomes disabled and is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611769.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Porter was convicted of burglary. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Both of which were material to his defense. Porter was retried and acquitted of all charges. We will refer throughout this opinion to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because Porter was prosecuted in state court and because his claims in this suit are against a non federal government official and a non federal governmental entity. The claims against White assert that the county is liable in damages under §1983 for inadequately training Fairbanks and other sheriff's department employees in the proper methods of disclosing Brady material. That the county is similarly liable for maintaining a custom or policy of not disclosing Brady material. The district court concluded that Fairbanks was entitled to qualified immunity on Porter's due process claim (because Fairbanks did not violate a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1399.html">HUNTER DOUGLAS V. HARMONIC DESIGN </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3E4DE43D42E1CE3788256BF1007E0FD2/$file/0115310.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: The O'Tooles have a ranch upstream from governmentowned property held in trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Is not protected by the discretionary function exception to the FTCA. Home Ranch's water and irrigation systems are supplied by the Reese River. Downstream on the Reese River from Home Ranch is Bowler Ranch. Bowler Ranch was purchased by the United States in 1937. The land is held in trust for the Shoshone Indian Tribe by the United States. Additional irrigation dams were built around 1980. The core of the government's argument is that the BIA has never had the resources necessary to repair the irrigation system on the Reservation. To address the needs that were most pressing in each fiscal year. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6F55A393DFAEEAEA8825722500821560/$file/0516790.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Which is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). UNITED STATES FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The relevant facts are not disputed. Darrow Erlin was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture and attempt to manufacture methaqualone. Erlin was convicted of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. Erlin was released from prison. He was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. That court ruled that the period of parole should have been limited to the three year methaqualone sentence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054406p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Lindsey alleged that the pipe layer was defective in that it did not have a rollover protective structure. Even if preemption is at issue. He was operating a sideboom pipe laying tractor manufactured by Caterpillar. The tractors were traveling in reverse gear. Which was the lower of the two. The Caterpillar tractor was not equipped with a rollover protective structure. Which could have prevented Charles from being crushed. Opined that it was technologically and economically feasible for the Caterpillar pipe layer to have been equipped with a rollover protective structure. This opinion was based in part on the fact that Caterpillar had designed a rollover protective structure for the tractor model at issue. Was providing such structures on its sideboom pipe layers at the time Charles Lindsey's pipe layer was manufactured. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration Area Director recognized that pipe layers are exempted from the requirement for rollover protective structures. Caterpillar moved for summary judgment on the product liability claim on the basis that Lindsey's cause of action for defective design was preempted by the Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1261.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Figa & Will P.C. Of the Homeowners were awarded damages against Goodyear only. Believing that the Entran II hose was causing the leaks. Heatway filed a counterclaim alleging that the Entran II hose was defective. Between 1998 and 2000 a number of suits were filed in Colorado state and federal courts by homeowners against Goodyear. Eight of these cases were consolidated. Homeowners claimed that Goodyear was liable for the costs of removing and replacing the Entran II hose installed in their homes. Reasoning that her damages were too speculative. Damages were not appropriately apportioned to it as a nonparty at fault. Goodyear argued that the Holzwarths and Sutterley/Kilgore presented evidence and were awarded damages for future repair costs that they had not incurred and would never incur because they had already sold their homes. The district court held that Homeowners were entitled to prejudgment interest from the date on which the hydronic heating systems. Were originally installed in the Homeowners' respective homes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/013450p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Donald Benn was under the care of therapist Dr. Is wholly owned by Universal Health System. Benn told Wilcox that he was looking for treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder and was interested in Horsham. Benn admits that during one conversation he told Wilcox that he was driving over the TaconyPalmyra Bridge. Benn arrived at Horsham late that evening and was quickly interviewed by psychiatrist Dr. Eluri that he was suicidal and that Dr. Eluri told Wilcox that he was concerned for Benn's safety and that a petition for involuntary com mitm ent m ight be necessary because Benn refused to seek treatment. 1998 agreed to keep myself safe and that if I feel any increase of suicidal thoughts or feeling I will contact Horsham Clinic [or] the police. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/052773P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Smith accidentally splashed cleaning fluid in his left eye while he was working in the kitchen of a Nebraska prison in March. The record reflects that an eye examination was scheduled for him in June of that year. He was not examined at that time. Smith's pupils to light was normal. Smith that his vision trouble was caused by a cataract. Smith's pupils were not reacting normally. Smith's pituitary gland was pinching his optic nerve. He was left without the use of his left eye. He also claimed that the defendants were negligent under Nebraska law. That there was no evidence that Mr. Clarke was involved in the medical treatment of inmates. Colerick were both state employees and thus Mr. Smith's negligence claims were barred because he had failed to file an administrative claim against them before proceeding in court. We consider first whether the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Mr. The defendants concede that the pituitary tumor was a serious medical need. Clarke is the chief administrator of Nebraska's prison system. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/95-5516.opa.html">FORGIONE V. DENNIS PIRTLE AGENCY </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Forgione v. Is a claim for negligence by an insured against an insurance agent for failure to obtain proper insurance coverage assignable? Because we are unable to find any authoritative decision from the Florida courts answering the question. Was involved in an automobile accident with a vehicle owned by Harry and Lena Tofel. Forgione was unable to satisfy that judgment completely. The Tofels assigned (or attempted to assign) to Forgione all the rights and claims they have against the insurance companies and agents through whom they obtained their insurance coverage. Those companies and agents are the defendants and appellees in this lawsuit.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/05/033441P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was $2.2 million. The district court determined that the owner of the M/V Anne Holly and the employer of its crew were entitled to 1 The complete caption for these consolidated cases is available from the clerk's office. limit their liability to $2.2 million under the Limitation of Liability Act. The district court also determined that the captain of the M/V Anne Holly was competent in general but negligent in this instance and that the allisions resulted from his spontaneous navigational error. Was partially at fault due to its failure to shield or move the Admiral after repeated past allisions at the same location. Because Winterville was not an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3E0165D76CA50A2988256AC4000479AA/$file/9956762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Alvarez is a medical doctor. DEA Special Agent Enrique Camarena Salazar ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0153n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 1 was (1) denied her constitutional right to substantive due process. Rebecca Cay Caldwell will be identified in the text of this opinion only as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012419.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> I. Since this is an interlocutory appeal. Filed even before the parties have completed discovery. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-50812.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Elaine searched for and was unable to At this point. Snow learned that the photographs were being used in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/00-2218.htm">00-2218 -- MARTINEZ V. CO2 SERVICES INC. -- 04/12/2001 </A> Martinez is the surviving spouse of Louis J. Who was an employee of the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department. Martinez was working in a construction zone on the eastbound side of Interstate 40 in Albuquerque. Traffic was restricted to the right hand lane of the three lane highway. The construction zone was cordoned off by orange barrels and other warning devices. Martinez was hit by a semi tractor trailer operated by Donald D. The truck had been traveling in the right hand lane of the highway when Mullins lost control of the vehicle and veered left across the two closed lanes of traffic into the emergency lane where Martinez was working. The truck was owned by defendant CO2 Services. Mullins was acting within the course and scope of his employment with defendant at the time of the accident. An autopsy was subsequently performed. It was determined that the cause of Mullins's death was ventricular fibrillation of the heart resulting in sudden cardiac arrest. Defendant is vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for: (1) the presumed negligence of Mullins in causing the accident as established under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (Count 2 of plaintiff's first amended complaint). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-50118.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Elaine searched for and was unable to At this point. Snow learned that the photographs were being used in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/74711B584E4B7E5488256E5A00707CB9/$file/9956762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Alvarez is a medical doctor. DEA Special Agent Enrique Camarena Salazar ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/94-9098.opa.html">HAMILTON V. CANNON </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hamilton v. We have jurisdiction over that judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/96-6833.opa.html">OPINION/ORDER</A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re Amtrak </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/11/032105P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The district court in Iowa dismissed the Chapman case on the ground that the commonlaw claims were preempted by the Federal Railroad Safety Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/01/993593P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This tort action was brought by Oriental Trading Co. After judgment was entered on a jury verdict in favor of OTC. I. Sam Firetti and Bing Ran are residents of Virginia who were directors. OTC is a Nebraska corporation that sells goods made in Asia through its catalogs. The goods were to be made in China and delivered to OTC in Nebraska. United States Customs Service (Customs) duties were not mentioned in the contracts. After the contracts were signed. United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 2 1 Customs was contemplating imposition of anti dumping duties on pencils made in certain Chinese factories. An anti dumping duty is a special duty placed on goods to prevent importation of large quantities of the item into the United States. There was evidence at trial from which the jury could find that Firetti suggested that Global now become the importer of record because it could switch factories and lower the cost of anti dumping duties to OTC and that he represented that Global would deal directly with Customs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-3598.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> Contending that they were required to indemnify him for any judgment obtained against him and for the cost of defending the suit. The Settlement Agreement provided that Hazel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/001687P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Because the continuous treatment doctrine is inapplicable to these facts. Because the prosthesis was not working properly. Hicks was unable to inflate or deflate the prosthesis. He had some continued swelling and pain in the surgically altered area and was suffering from concealed penis syndrome. To correct the problems Hicks was having with the prosthesis. It is also undisputed that the action was filed over two years after The Honorable Robert T. Was substituted as the plaintiff. 23 2 the second allegedly negligent surgical procedure. The sole issue is whether the facts satisfy Arkansas' narrow continuous treatment exception to its statute of limitations. ANALYSIS Medical malpractice claims in Arkansas are subject to a two year statute of limitations. The continuous treatment doctrine represents an effort to deal with medical treatments that are of an ongoing nature and/or that make it difficult to identify any isolated act of negligence. The same defining passage has been cited in every Arkansas case to consider the continuous treatment doctrine: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/96-6833.opa.html">OPINION/ORDER</A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re Amtrak </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr96/94-9098.opa.html">HAMILTON V. CANNON </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hamilton v. We have jurisdiction over that judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1950.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is amended as follows: Cover sheet. Powers were on brief for appellant. Sharton and Segal & Feinberg were on brief for appellee. Clarke was sexually harassed. Was barred for failure to exhaust mandatory administrative remedies before the Massachu setts Commission Against Discrimination ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may96/95-8084.opa.html">POGUE V. OGLETHORPE POWER CORP. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Pogue v. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may96/95-8084.opa.html">POGUE V. OGLETHORPE POWER CORP. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Pogue v. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkwMDhfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9008_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Potthast argues that the district court should have granted his request for a 17 res ipsa loquitur jury charge. 10 he was dropped to the floor. Potthast noticed that one of the chair's 11 support bolts was missing. That bolt was never recovered. Which he claims were due to Metro North's 13 negligence in failing to provide a safe working environment. 14 Only Metro North employees had access to the Armature Room. Those who used it 15 most were the employees who worked full time in the room. The room was also used. Potthast was one of those who typically 3 waited there. When it was too cold to wait outdoors. 4 Including the chair that collapsed. There were nine or ten similar chairs in the Armature 5 Room. The chair that collapsed under Potthast was normally occupied by Anthony Merante 6 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/011118.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> We answer this question in the negative and thus will affirm the order of the district court. Joining the City are ASPIRA. Supp. 2d at 895 97 (recognizing that damages of organizational plaintiffs' members </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1278.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. Were on brief for appellee. Were on brief for Health Industry Manufacturers Association. The district court determined that plaintiff's claims were preempted by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4309.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Was killed in an accident during a military training operation at Camp Pendleton. He was fatally wounded when a participant mistakenly used live ammunition for the blanks that were intended for the exercise. The United States was substituted as a defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2679(d)(1). Arguing that Jeremy's death </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2780_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The suit asserted that railroad warning devices at the crossing were inadequate. The district court concluded that the case was controlled by Norfolk Southern Railroad Co. v. The court held that the plaintiffs' inadequate warnings claims were preempted by federal law. Preempts the plaintiffs' claims to the extent they are premised upon the alleged inadequacy of the warning devices at the crossing. The district court also held that the plaintiffs' negligence claim against Newton County for obstruction of view and failure to maintain signage was factually insufficient to survive summary judgment. An automobile operated by Sheryl Bechard was struck by a train operated by the National Passenger Railroad Association ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5043.html">DUREIKO JOSEPH V. U.S. </A> With him on the brief were David W. We hold that the trial court improperly held that the government s actions allegedly constituting a breach of its contract with Pine Isle were ". That Pine Isle was collaterally estopped from disputing the discretionary nature of the government s actions. That the trial court correctly held that Pine Isle s taking and inverse condemnation claims were legally inadequate. The undersigned hereby certifies and warrants that he is the owner or authorized agent of the owner or authorized agent of the owner [of] the [Pine Isle Mobile Home Park] . . . which has been declared uninhabitable under Chapter 17C of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. The Contractor shall preserve and protect all existing structures which have not been designated for demolition. Since under the Stafford Act the United States was immune from suit. Pine Isle s taking and inverse condemnation claims were not viable. Since a claim for breach of contract was the appropriate remedy. The alleged government s actions were not authorized by an enactment of Congress. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4EE1DAEB1D688C258825730C004C0D4F/$file/0555126.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> The sole issue on appeal is whether the Feres doctrine. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. Aaron Schoenfeld was a Lance Corporal in the United States Marine Corps stationed at Marine Corps Base. He was generally on duty from Monday to Friday and had weekends off. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-50937.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. That she was ineligible to take the defensive driving course. Barnes was told that she could return on a later date to talk to a judge about resolving the matter. The letter was returned to the court on April 13 because it was sent to an old address. On April 25 a warrant for Barnes's arrest was issued. Barnes says that she The failure to appear warrant was not executed at that received the letter upon returning from vacation on May 29. Barnes immediately wrote a letter to Clerk Thompson contending that she had in fact made a valid appearance in court and insisting that the arrest warrant was therefore improper. Went well beyond expressing mere irritation at a perceived bureaucratic slip up. passage: The letter concluded with the following 3 I WILL FIGHT TO THE DEATH WITH ANYONE WHO TRIES TO PULL ME FROM MY HOME. I WILL NOT BE ARRESTED AND THROWN IN JAIL! THE BLOOD WILL BE ON YOUR HANDS! ... </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0565n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We review Comstock's appeal of the district court's denial of her pre verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law to determine </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2357.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was on brief. Was on brief. We have jurisdiction because Cronin's motion was based on her claim of qualified immunity and because her challenge to its denial involves only abstract legal questions. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5157.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Plaintiff Julie Spencer was struck by a vehicle while walking through an Oklahoma Wal Mart parking lot. They argue Wal Mart breached its duty to (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Wal Mart did not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1920.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> O'Donnell was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston. Egan was on brief for appellee Christian Brothers Institute of Massachusetts. Filed counterclaims alleging damages arising from Air Safety's work.1 The bottom line after a series of rulings by the court and the jury was a net award in favor of each defendant. Which Air Safety contends were excessive and unsupported by the record. Including the quality of Air Safety's performance and the defendants' obligations to pay for completed 1 RCAB is the owner of five of the schools. Stayed enforcement of the judgment until all other claims were resolved.4 Following a twelve day trial. The jury also determined that Air Safety was responsible for 2 An </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-7040.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Covington filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that he was a federal employee under the Federal Tort Claims Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1555.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> Anthony Lewis is a physician specializing in cardiology. On the ground that Lewis was really asserting tort claims. Any tort claim was barred by Indiana's two year statute of limitations. This breach in turn gives rise to a claim for breach of contract that is subject to Indiana's more generous tenyear statute of limitations for written contract actions. We nevertheless have come to the conclusion that Lewis's complaint in part stated a claim for breach of contract. We express no opinion on the question whether Lewis as an individual is entitled to sue to enforce rights that may belong only to his professional corporation. As this was not discussed in any way by the district court or the parties.). I The actual parties to the agreement in question were Lewis's professional corporation. P.C. (of which he was the sole shareholder) and Methodist Hospital. After several unsuccessful attempts to have the Hospital address his concerns about billing and fee collection. At the heart of Lewis's complaint is his allegation that Methodist Hospital failed adequately to bill and collect fees from his patients and their insurers for cardiology services that he provided. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/02-5134.htm">02-5134 -- CARDTOONS V. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION -- 07/14/2003 </A> Circuit Judge. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4197D39A00F7A6A688256B1F00579D3F/$file/0015614.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Jackson & Donahue is a law corporation owned by Glenn K. J&D is primarily involved in the defense of insureds in workers' compensation litigation. One purpose of the Guidelines was to provide billing instructions for the firm. If the auditors assigned to perform the audit were incompetent or biased or. He conceded that the Guidelines provided that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2D40789C8144F8F088256E5A00707D86/$file/0015614.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Jackson & Donahue is a law corporation owned by Glenn K. J&D is primarily involved in the defense of insureds in workers' compensation litigation. One purpose of the Guidelines was to provide billing instructions for the firm. If the auditors assigned to perform the audit were incompetent or biased or. He conceded that the Guidelines provided that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1161p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> This appeal by defendant/third party plaintiff Commer cial Union Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/00-5131.htm">00-5131 -- WILSON V. MUCKALA -- 08/21/2002 </A> Kenneth Muckala who was Vice Chief and Chief of Staff of Columbia Doctors Hospital of Tulsa. This plain statement is not quite accurate. Oklahoma courts say that negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent tort. Is in effect the tort of negligence. Kraszewski v. The question in this case is simply whether the Defendants were justly found liable for negligence. In looking to the merits of Ms. Damages for mental anguish are recoverable only if they are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0154p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The public policy claim was sent to the jury. Defendants then renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law on the public policy claim and the District Court granted the renewed motion finding that Plaintiff had failed to establish at trial that he was an at will employee. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Gary Kusens was employed by Defendant Pascal Company. When his position was eliminated. Plaintiff was 54 years old. His base salary increased and his commissions were determined as a fixed percentage of nationwide Pascal sales. Two of the people responsible for the elimination of Plaintiff's position were Defendant Benjamin Paschall. Pascal's Vice President of Sales and Marketing who was also Plaintiff's direct supervisor. Plaintiff was the oldest of the four Regional Sales Managers at Pascal. Who was terminated the same day as Plaintiff. Was the second oldest. The youngest two Sales Managers were retained. Plaintiff filed suit contending that he was fired because of his age and not because of Pascal's financial strategy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044457p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Wayne and Suzanne Hallowell and Merrill and Betty Mest are dairy farmers whose cows suffered from various ailments over the course of twenty years before being diagnosed with fluorosis in 1999.1 Upon learning the cause of their cows' symptoms. The Fluorosis is a disease caused by fluoride poisoning. That Cabot fraudulently misled the plaintiffs to believe that the emissions were harmless. Held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to damages for emotional distress. The plaintiffs' claims are not time barred. The plaintiffs' farms are located one to four miles from a facility (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0020n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Pavlovich now is trying to blame defendant National City Bank ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0112p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Kentucky were exposed over many years to dangerous radioactive substances without their knowledge. Four such workers and members of their families have sued General Electric (GE). Factual background The Paducah Gas Diffusion Plant (PDGP) is a sprawling industrial plant located on a 3. It was built by the federal government in the early 1950s as part of an initial foray into uranium processing. Its three successive operators have all been named as defendants in this suit. They are Union Carbide (formerly known as Carbide and Chemicals Company. 800 individuals have been employed by the PGDP at any one time. The primary purpose of the PGDP is and always has been to enrich uranium. The solid uranium is then converted into a gaseous form and forced through a series of membranes that increase the concentration of uranium 235. This </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/05/97-3220.htm">97-3220 -- FRANKLIN SAVINGS CORP. V. U.S. -- 05/04/1999 </A> PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND This is the third appeal to this court and the seventh published opinion involving disputes over the conservation and liquidation of the long gone but not forgotten Franklin Savings Association. See Franklin Sav. This court has distilled the following summary of the litigation from Franklin II. See 35 F.3d at 1468. In 1990 the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS ) determined that FSA was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19958084.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0040p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Pavlovich now is trying to blame defendant National City Bank ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/02-5252a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/4197d39a00f7a6a688256b1f00579d3f/$FILE/0015614.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Jackson & Donahue is a law corporation owned by Glenn K. J&D is primarily involved in the defense of insureds in workers' compensation litigation. One purpose of the Guidelines was to provide billing instructions for the firm. If the auditors assigned to perform the audit were incompetent or biased or. He conceded that the Guidelines provided that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/2d40789c8144f8f088256e5a00707d86/$FILE/0015614.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Jackson & Donahue is a law corporation owned by Glenn K. J&D is primarily involved in the defense of insureds in workers' compensation litigation. One purpose of the Guidelines was to provide billing instructions for the firm. If the auditors assigned to perform the audit were incompetent or biased or. He conceded that the Guidelines provided that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/98-6282.htm">98-6282 -- GARRETT V. BRYAN CAVE LLP -- 04/21/2000 </A> Garrett was employed by Stifel from 1987 through 1995. Which was headed by Robert Cochran. Bond issues that were underwritten by the Oklahoma City office came under suspicion in the early 1990s. Garrett was initially represented by outside attorney Dino Viera in the SEC investigation. Garrett was not present at the proffer session. The court in the criminal case concluded that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033404p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> DE NN IS RE MP . LOU IS REYES. CU RT IS ST IE LY . TH EO DO RE LEW IS. F R ANC IS M . Contending that Appellants' claims were completely preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/032084.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We are confronted with two issues: (1) whether the district court erred by refusing Lampe's motion for directed verdict under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. Lampe claims that he was thrown into the air. Lampe was rendered uncon LAMPE v. Emergency officials were notified. Kim was cited with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-3981.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> Whose recoveries under 42 2 Nos. 00 3981 & 00 4115 U.S.C. §1988(b) in constitutional tort litigation are not subject to any statutory maximum. That §1997e(d) is within Congress' authority. We hold that §1997e(d) is rationally related to valid objectives and hence is within the legislative power. Whether or not it is wise. I Section 1997e(d) provides: (1) In any action brought by a prisoner who is confined to any jail. In which attorney's fees are authorized under [42 U.S.C. §1988]. Except to the extent that (A) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff's rights protected by a statute pursuant to which a fee may be awarded . . . . (B)(i) the amount of the fee is proportionately related to the court ordered relief for the violation. Or (ii) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief ordered for the violation. Nos. 00 3981 & 00 4115 (2) Whenever a monetary judgment is awarded in an action described in paragraph (1). If the award of attorney's fees is not greater than 150 percent of the judgment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2149.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Edna Hernandez and Reichard & Escalera were on brief for appellees. Holding that all of plaintiffs' claims were barred by the one year Puerto Rico statute of limitation applicable to tort actions. 935 F. To what extent is the running of the statutory time limit of one year for the filing of tort actions for damages affected by lack of awareness of injury. To what extent is the running of the statutory time limit of one year affected by lack of awareness of a connection between 2 injury and a product of a manufacturer or other supplier of the product? To what extent is the running of the limitation period affected by the representations of the person who caused the injury. The matters of law we are deciding. Are matters of the law of Puerto Rico. Our objective is solely to determine what is the law as indicated by authoritative sources. Primary among these </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2001/99-6071.man.html">O'FERRELL V. UNITED STATES (6/11/2001, NO. 99-6071) </A> The lawsuit was based on actions taken by federal law enforcement agents in 1990 when the plaintiffs were targets of a massive investigation of a group of mail bombings and attempted mail bombings that took place in December of 1989. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3D85DBFEC9FD4BC788256E5A00707D3D/$file/9735191.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> While the decision was pending. Judge Schroeder was drawn to replace him. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal of a $5 billion punitive damages award arising out of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This is not a case about befouling the environment. This is a case about commercial fishing. The jury was specifically instructed that it could not award damages for environmental harm. The reason is that under a stipulation with the United States and Alaska. Exxon had already been punished for environmental harm.1 The verdict in this case was for damage to economic expectations for commercial fishermen. The plaintiffs here were almost entirely compensated for their damages years ago. The punitive damages at issue were awarded to punish Exxon. Among the issues are whether punitive damages should have been barred as a matter of law and whether the award was excessive. Important aspects of this opinion are controlled by a 1 See Eyak Native Village v. Inc. 3 Facts Bligh Island and Bligh Reef have been known to navigators for a long time. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov96/94-1190.wpd.html">WILLIAMS V. DENVER </A> We are once again called upon to address the tragic aftermath of a high speed collision caused by a police vehicle. We view the record in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment is granted. Officer Farr was responding to a request by another officer to back up the arrest of a car thief. The requesting officer did not ask for an emergency response nor indicate that he was in danger. Which was proceeding into the intersection on the green light at no more than 20 miles per hour. The executive director of the Denver Civil Service Commission strongly recommended that Officer Farr not be hired because of his driving record and felt that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032846np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Sandra Lewis and Marva Rountree J u d g e C h e r to f f h e a r d o r a l a r g u m e n t in th is c a s e b u t r e s ig n e d p r io r to th e tim e th e o p in io n w a s f ile d . T h e o p in io n is f ile d b y a q u o r u m o f th e p a n e l. 2 8 U .S .C . § § 4 6 ( d ) . 2 * PHILIP B. We will affirm. I. FACTS Mary Barksdale is a 76 year old widow who lives in Philadelphia. The Women's Christian Alliance ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1995/95a1036p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> We are asked to decide. No such forfeiture has occurred and we will thus affirm the district court's judgment. Francis Deisler is a seaman who is a member of International Union of Operating Engineers. Deisler injured his back while he was working on a dredge and he was disabled for about six months. While Deisler was working as a dredgeman for another boating company. That application included the following question: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb96/94-1434.html">HILL V. UNITED STATES </A> Attached is a published version. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. This case was brought on behalf of Tasha Hill. Tasha was seriously injured as a result of the government's negligence at an Army medical facility in Colorado. 500 to Tasha's parents for services rendered to her over the past few years when they were unable to afford professional medical care. The award was based on the estimated cost of providing twenty four hour nursing care. The government claims that the parents were merely providing largely unskilled parental care and should not be compensated for a level of care that they did not provide. The district court found that the Hills' care was equivalent both in kind and quality to the care that would have been rendered by a Licensed Practical Nurse. The government has not demonstrated that this finding was clearly erroneous. The government has also urged that the district court erred in failing to place the award to pay for Tasha's future damages in a reversionary trust.2 Tasha's award is based on a projected life expectancy of a normal healthy girl of her age. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/95-3309.wpd.html">WOLFGANG V. MID-AMERICA MOTORSPORTS, INC. </A> The practice session was in preparation for races scheduled for April 4 and 5. The races were promoted by Defendant R.E.D. Lakeside Speedway is owned by Defendant Mid America Motorsports. Wolfgang was knocked unconscious. While there were (1) Mr. Defendants have acquiesced in the judgment. The motion is DENIED. normally five to seven firefighters at Lakeside racing events. Only two firefighters were present when Mr. These two firefighters had never trained together and were unfamiliar with sprint car design. Some of their hand held fire extinguishers were not designed for use on a methanol fire. Wolfgang sat in his burning car for eight to ten minutes before other drivers were finally able to extricate him. He was airlifted to the University of Kansas Medical Center by helicopter. Racing were treated by stipulation as one entity. Lakeside and World of Outlaws were the only defendants at trial. Arguing that the Release was void and unenforceable on public policy grounds. It ruled that the Release was valid and enforceable as to Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/06/972691P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Rosebud Reservation tribal officer Kenneth Michael Scott was returning from a work related training seminar in New Mexico. Scott came upon Lesa Primeaux walking toward Martin because her car was stuck in a snowbank. Finding that Scott's tortious conduct was not committed within the scope of his employment as a matter of South Dakota law. Concluding that apparent authority is not a basis for FTCA liability in South Dakota. That the rape was not within the scope of Scott's government employment. I. The FTCA is a limited waiver of the federal government's sovereign immunity. The parties agree that the determination of whether Scott was acting within the scope of his employment is governed by the law of the State where the tort occurred. That is the situation we encounter in this case. This proposition was open to question under the FTCA as initially enacted. Was construed as resolving the issue. The United States is substituted as defendant if the Attorney General certifies the employee acted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/05/953913P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This case raises the question whether a judgment debt resulting from a medical malpractice action is dischargeable in bankruptcy. The Kawaauhaus maintain that it is not. Because it is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/11/066033P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(6). Debtor testified in her deposition that she knew McBride was beating Dillon. Was trained in spotting and reporting child abuse. Debtor conceded that she removed Dillon from the program because she was concerned that the therapist would begin questioning the source of Dillon's bruises. Debtor was working the overnight shift at a local Target store. McBride called Debtor that evening and stated that Dillon was crying and had hurt his head and penis from a fall. She also observed that Dillon was having a difficult time speaking and breathing. Dillon was dead. He was three years old. One of his teeth had been knocked out and was found by the coroner in his stomach. McBride was convicted of first degree felony murder for Dillon's death. Debtor was originally charged with second degree murder for Dillon's death. Which is double the presumed sentence for second degree manslaughter under Minnesota law. Counts II and III of the Wrongful Death Action are directed against Debtor. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/99-6071.man.html">O'FERRELL V. UNITED STATES (6/11/2001, NO. 99-6071) </A> The lawsuit was based on actions taken by federal law enforcement agents in 1990 when the plaintiffs were targets of a massive investigation of a group of mail bombings and attempted mail bombings that took place in December of 1989. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/12/01-4120.htm">01-4120 -- ELDER V. U.S. -- 12/03/2002 </A> Who died when he slipped and fell over a ledge while crossing a stream at the Middle Emerald Pools at Zion National Park (Zion). Plaintiffs allege that Zion employees were negligent in failing to protect visitors. The district court ruled that liability was foreclosed by the discretionary function exception to the FTCA. Plunged more than 100 feet onto rocks below. The Emerald Pools is one of Zion's most visited attractions. The Middle Emerald Pools is a smooth. The stream that Tyler attempted to cross was less than four feet wide and only three to five inches deep. (A photograph of the Middle Emerald Pools as it appeared shortly after Tyler's death is attached as an appendix to this opinion.) Prior to his fall. There were at least 14 signs that warned of various hazards and cautioned visitors to stay on the trail. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3153_017.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> OE This decision was originally released as an unpublished order. It is being reissued as a published opinion. 2 I. Alcala was using a machine to split tires when a tire became stuck in the equipment. Emhart Industries is a successor to Turner Tanning. After Alcala was injured. Alcala alleged that Emhart was negligent in failing to provide a hand guard to prevent his injury. Additional details related to voir dire and the jury instructions are included. Explaining that Alcala was suing Emhart for personal injuries that occurred while Alcala was using a splitting machine at work. If there were any law No. 06 3153 3 suits that resulted from those injuries. What are your opinions regarding personal injury lawsuits? 26. What are your opinions concerning product liability lawsuits? 27. Have you or someone you know actively advocated tort reform? 28. Have you or someone you know actively campaigned for or against legislation concerning personal injury lawsuits? 29. Please explain whether or not you would follow such a law in this case if it is given to you. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3C2CBD69E6E2C18388256AFD001790CB/$file/9735191.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> While the decision was pending. Judge Schroeder was drawn to replace him. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal of a $5 billion punitive damages award arising out of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This is not a case about befouling the environment. This is a case about commercial fishing. The jury was specifically instructed that it could not award damages for environmental harm. The reason is that under a stipulation with the United States and Alaska. Exxon had already been punished for environmental harm.1 The verdict in this case was for damage to economic expectations for commercial fishermen. The plaintiffs here were almost entirely compensated for their damages years ago. The punitive damages at issue were awarded to punish Exxon. Among the issues are whether punitive damages should have been barred as a matter of law and whether the award was excessive. Important aspects of this opinion are controlled by a 1 See Eyak Native Village v. Inc. 3 Facts Bligh Island and Bligh Reef have been known to navigators for a long time. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/023304p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Because we conclude that Appellees have sufficient contacts with New Jersey. We will reverse. Miller Yacht was required to present a prima facie case that jurisdiction existed. Miller Yacht is a New Jersey corporation with its principal offices in South Toms River. Are not New Jersey residents or corporations. Miller Yacht and Appellees began negotiating a deal that was intended to allow the Appellees to become exclusive marketing representatives and dealers for some of Miller Yacht's boats. Appellees stress their argument that they were each acting in their individual corporate or personal capacities and that their contacts with New Jersey should be analyzed separately. While they are correct that. Miller Yacht alleges that Steven Smith and Ivan Bogachoff were acting as partners while they negotiated with Miller Yacht. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/023304p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Because we conclude that Appellees have sufficient contacts with New Jersey. We will reverse. Miller Yacht was required to present a prima facie case that jurisdiction existed. Miller Yacht is a New Jersey corporation with its principal offices in South Toms River. Are not New Jersey residents or corporations. Miller Yacht and Appellees began negotiating a deal that was intended to allow the Appellees to become exclusive marketing representatives and dealers for some of Miller Yacht's boats. Appellees stress their argument that they were each acting in their individual corporate or personal capacities and that their contacts with New Jersey should be analyzed separately. While they are correct that. Miller Yacht alleges that Steven Smith and Ivan Bogachoff were acting as partners while they negotiated with Miller Yacht. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb99/97-5801.man.html">GOODLIN V. MEDTRONIC, INC. (2/18/1999, NO. 97-5801) </A> Alleging that her Medtronic cardiac pacemaker lead was defective in a way that gave rise to two causes of action under Florida common law. The pacemaker lead is a wire that transmits the heartbeat steadying electrical impulse from the pulse generator to the heart. The MDA classifies devices that either </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb99/97-5801.man.html">GOODLIN V. MEDTRONIC, INC. (2/18/1999, NO. 97-5801) </A> Alleging that her Medtronic cardiac pacemaker lead was defective in a way that gave rise to two causes of action under Florida common law. The pacemaker lead is a wire that transmits the heartbeat steadying electrical impulse from the pulse generator to the heart. The MDA classifies devices that either </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1687.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. For harm to a building into which its product (containing asbestos fibers) was installed. Used in constructing a building occupied and used at all relevant times by plaintiff (an entity designated in the general contract for construction of the building as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1307.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> With whom Norman Roy Grutman and Grutman Greene & Humphrey were on brief. Mahoney & Miller were on brief. Vetter & White were on brief. Was a vendor to Sammartino. The gold was made available in daily allotments for SI's manufacture of fine jewelry. A field warehouse was established under the auspices of SLT Warehouse Company (SLT). Putnam was to be paid for the metal as and when the manufacturer sold the jewelry which it made from the gold. Learned that Putnam's carrier was planning to cancel existing coverage. Pateman was the lead underwriter.1 In July 1987. Sammartino notified Putnam that substantial amounts of the vendor's gold were missing. Putnam filed claim under the Lloyd's policy for 1Lloyd's marine policy no. 243440200 was syndicated and. That Pateman was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0AF115321BE654B28825728100813F92/$file/0456844.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Scheuring claims that he is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-5135.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Lawrence Sims died when the speeding car he was driving sailed off a rural road. A jury found the death was accidental and awarded Mrs. The district court refused to admit evidence that would have been inadmissible in state court. He was still quite intoxicated when the couple returned home that evening to an unkempt kitchen. She told the 911 operator that Sims </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0833n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Sellers of a pool in which Plaintiff was injured. Defendants in the instant case are all insurance companies with whom the underlying tort defendants had policies or coverage. Defendant One Beacon Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0230p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> When Williamson's mother was murdered by a Tech Dry employee who had previously done work at her mother's home. In actions seeking damages for bodily harm if they are caused by an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/043245P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Leavitt is automatically substituted for his predecessor. Arguing that she was not required to comply with North Dakota law because tribal law governs instead. Which is in turn within the territory of the State of North Dakota. In considering whether the dismissal was warranted. 319 (1957) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/33DAA86C85AF72D08825723E005EE5E6/$file/0455396.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: First Alliance Mortgage Company was driven into bankruptcy and subsequent liquidation by well publicized and justified allegations of fraudulent lending practices. One is a class action on behalf of First Alliance's borrowers seeking to impose liability for aiding and abetting the fraudulent scheme engaged in by First Alliance. (This group of unsecured creditors is essentially the same as the group of borrowers asserting their claims of fraud against First Alliance. As is explained in more detail below. These two separate actions were handled together by the same district court and have been consolidated for purposes of this appeal. First Alliance Mortgage Company First Alliance was a lender in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BBBA3E07A548B01B88256D57007097DA/$file/9915185.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is amended as follows. The petition for rehearing is denied. There is not much dispute. Where there is. The facts are of course taken favorably to the verdict.3 On October 9. The driveway is sloped. The truck was parked on the slope pointing downhill. The Whites' three year old son Walter was playing outside. The Whites' theory of the case was that Walter pulled or kicked it out of first gear into neutral. The gearshift lever is a long stalk sticking up from the floor. So Walter may have been clambering after his lost piggy bank. The parking brake didn't hold the truck after it was shifted from first to neutral. The plaintiffs' theory of the case was that the parking brake let go despite being set. Ford knew the parking brake was prone to failure. He wouldn't have parked his truck on a slope. He would have brought the truck in immediately to be fixed. Ford offered alternative theories of how the accident could have occurred. One was that Mr. If this is how the accident occurred. That the parking brake sometimes allowed trucks to roll despite being engaged and that Ford should have warned its customers. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200504/04-5238a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/23BD0A16D9ED890A88256C840006015B/$file/9915185.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> There is not much dispute. Where there is. The facts are of course taken favorably to the verdict.3 On October 9. The driveway is sloped. The truck was parked on the slope This decision had to await the Supreme Court's decision in Cooper Industries. The Whites' three year old son Walter was playing outside. The Whites' theory of the case was that Walter pulled or kicked it out of first gear into neutral. The gearshift lever is a long stalk sticking up from the floor. So Walter may have been clambering after his lost piggy bank. The parking brake didn't hold the truck after it was shifted from first to neutral. The plaintiffs' theory of the case was that the parking brake let go despite being set. Ford knew the parking brake was prone to failure. He wouldn't have parked his truck on a slope. He would have brought the truck in immediately to be fixed. FORD MOTOR CO. 7 Ford offered alternative theories of how the accident could have occurred. One was that Mr. If this is how the accident occurred. That the parking brake sometimes allowed trucks to roll despite being engaged and that Ford should have warned its customers. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTAxODItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0182-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Some were passengers on the hijacked airplanes. Others were present at the World Trade Center ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1951.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Heineman & Itzkowitz were on brief for appellants. Lapp and Palmer & Dodge were on brief for appellee C.R. Keefe with whom Hale and Dorr was on brief for appellee David Prigmore. Kettlewell with whom Dwyer & Collora was on brief for appellee John Cvinar. Were on brief for the United States. Drug and Cosmetic Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTc4MDFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-7801_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> When she was eleven years old. Who was a member of this panel passed away following oral argument. Three verdict sheet errors and the confusion they generated caused the jury in this tort action to render a verdict in favor of plaintiff on one count performing a medical procedure without informed consent inconsistent with its answers to specific interrogatories and to fail to reach another count battery on which interrogatory answers suggested it may have found in plaintiff's favor. Because there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict against Brookdale. They suggested that Chanel was the baby's mother and that she had thrown it out the window. Suggesting that the only alternative was Chanel's detention. The extent of the examinations is not entirely clear from the testimony. The purpose of both examinations was to ensure that Chanel had not recently given birth to a baby. They established that it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031510.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Concluding that there was no coverage under the policy and that Travelers therefore had no duty to defend. Travelers funded Miller's defense in the underlying arbitration action.2 Travelers thereafter commenced this action seeking a declaration that it was not obligated under the policy to defend Miller against the claims asserted by PVC. [a]n insurer's duty to defend is ordinarily measured by the facts as alleged in the pleadings. Its duty to pay is measured by the facts ultimately determined at trial. When the pleadings state facts demonstrating that the alleged injury is covered by the policy. Whether or not the insured is ultimately liable. We are not. The facts as developed during discovery are also relevant to the duty to defend inquiry. App. 1990) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1208.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was David E. With him on the brief was Devon H. With him on the brief were Peter D. Because there was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2001/001516.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0021a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> WILL & EMERY. WILL & EMERY. Was severely burned when the shirt that she was wearing ignited upon contact with a hot electric burner on her apartment stove.1 She brought a lawsuit against Dayton Hudson Corporation. The Minnesota based owner of the department store where the shirt was purchased. Her claims were based on allegations that (1) the shirt's design rendered it unreasonably dangerous. This case is the subject of an earlier opinion. The panel is persuaded that the earlier opinion should be withdrawn and this opinion substituted. 1 * 98 1660 Hollister v. That any duty to warn was obviated by the open and obvious nature of the alleged defect. We believe that Hollister has adduced sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable juror to conclude that the shirt sold by Dayton Hudson was defective because of its failure to carry a warning regarding its extreme flammability. She need only establish a prima facie case that the shirt was defective and that it caused her injuries in order to pursue her claim for breach of implied warranty. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE4OTgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1898-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED on the grounds that plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence as to causation. Who had originally brought negligence actions against Defendants Appellees Utica College of Syracuse University ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE4OTgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1898-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED on the grounds that plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence as to causation. Who had originally brought negligence actions against Defendants Appellees Utica College of Syracuse University ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/90331D3BF2ED3AE588256DDD0000110B/$file/0235731.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> OPINION PER CURIAM: Joseph and Judy Pauly are farmers who entered into a tenyear agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) whereby the USDA agreed to restructure the Paulys' debt in exchange for a portion of the appreciation in the value of their farm during the term of the agreement. The Paulys argue that the Government or its agents are liable for tort damages arising from fraud in the inducement. The district court affirmed the USDA's determination that appreciation was due under the agreement and granted in part the USDA's motion for summary judgment. The district court was correct in enforcing the agreement according to its terms and in conformity with the statute governing the USDA's loan program. Held a portfolio that was severely threatened by the declining net worth of U.S. farmers. The vast majority of FmHA's outstanding farm debt was delinquent. Which allowed farmers who were delinquent in payments to restructure their debts. Joseph and Judy Pauly are farmers who were delinquent in their loans from the USDA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-40776.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Which was Ken Powers's employer. James was assisted out of her car. Which was left with its black undercarriage facing south. Testified that there was a hill preceding the place where the van had settled. The area were the van lay was dark. Approached the obstruction caused by the van and was unable to avoid impact. Testified that from his vantage point he saw nothing that Johnson could have done to avoid the wreck. Johnson's vision was brought into question by the plaintiffs. Records from Johnson's DOT examinations from 1980 through 1998 showed that his vision was 20/20 throughout this period. Although this is not determinative of Johnson's ability to satisfy DOT requirement for commercial drivers. Plaintiffs also contend that the failure to give the negligence per se instruction is plain error. Plaintiffs allege that trial counsel was ill. This was the reason for the failure to object to the lack of an instruction. So they are entitled to a new trial. I. Evidentiary questions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0083n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We now have before us a declaratory judgment action between two insurance companies arguing over which company must supply the remaining funds (a little less than $1 million) of the $2.5 million settlement. Both companies have policies covering Valley Personnel. 000 to cover accidents of this type and that such truck accidents are excluded from coverage of USF&G's comprehensive liability policy for Valley Personnel. Two of which are at issue in this case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200211437.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This court is asked to define the contours between harms best left to the province of traditional tort law and those harms that rise to the level of constitutional violations. We will affirm the District Court's holding. Was enrolled in an electromechanical class taught by defendant Paul Brown. Brown was instructing the class on the use of a volt meter. The wire was then connected to an adjustable transformer. After checking to ensure that the probes were all properly attached to the exposed areas of the wire. Which were capable of reading up to 750 volts. While the voltage reading demonstration was taking place. Jeremiah Nix was seated at a table with two other students. While the transformer was operating at the 700 volt level. He noticed that Jeremiah was leaning over to his left with the wire in his hands. Who was gasping for breath. Emergency medical technicians were called to the school. The efforts to revive Jeremiah were unsuccessful he died from the electrical shock. The Nixes have presented some evidence that Brown was aware of substantial risks to the students in his class. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2002/02-11437.opn.html">NIX V. FRANKLIN COUNTY SCH. DIST. (11/19/2002, NO. 02-11437) </A> This court is asked to define the contours between harms best left to the province of traditional tort law and those harms that rise to the level of constitutional violations. We will affirm the District Court's holding. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2002/02-11437.opn.html">NIX V. FRANKLIN COUNTY SCH. DIST. (11/19/2002, NO. 02-11437) </A> This court is asked to define the contours between harms best left to the province of traditional tort law and those harms that rise to the level of constitutional violations. We will affirm the District Court's holding. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug04/03-40776.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Which was Ken Powers's employer. James was assisted out of her car. Which was left with its black undercarriage facing south. Testified that there was a hill preceding the place where the van had settled. The area were the van lay was dark. Approached the obstruction caused by the van and was unable to avoid impact. Testified that from his vantage point he saw nothing that Johnson could have done to avoid the wreck. Johnson's vision was brought into question by the plaintiffs. Records from Johnson's DOT examinations from 1980 through 1998 showed that his vision was 20/20 throughout this period. Although this is not determinative of Johnson's ability to satisfy DOT requirement for commercial drivers. Plaintiffs also contend that the failure to give the negligence per se instruction is plain error. Plaintiffs allege that trial counsel was ill. This was the reason for the failure to object to the lack of an instruction. So they are entitled to a new trial. I. Evidentiary questions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/03/046055P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The principal issue in this appeal is whether the state court judgment for alienation of affections established that Stage willfully and maliciously injured Osborne for purposes of 11 U.S.C § 523(a)(6). The case was submitted to a jury with the following instruction: Your verdict must be for Plaintiff. Plaintiff was married to Daniel Osborne. Defendant did so intentionally and Fourth Plaintiff was thereby damaged.1 The court declined to give the following punitive damages instruction submitted by the plaintiff: If you find the issues in favor of the plaintiff. As submitted in instruction number was outrageous because of Defendant. An additional amount as punitive damages in such sum as you believe will serve to punish Defendant. This was labeled as instruction #6. Judgment on the jury's verdict was entered by the court on July 28. Claiming that the judgment she received in state court is excepted from Stage's discharge under § 523(a)(6). Osborne claimed that Stage is collaterally estopped from contesting the issue of willful and malicious injury because the issues have already been litigated and determined in the state court action. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/01/971406P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> She claimed were due to the negligence of the doctors who performed the surgery. MeritCare responded that such complications were common in this type of procedure and they were not at fault. She underwent emergency surgery for an infection in her abdominal cavity and a significant part of her small intestine was removed. The jury could have decided in favor of either party 2 based on the evidence presented at trial. That the defendants presented compelling expert testimony supporting their contention that the plaintiffs' injuries could have occurred without any negligence on the part of the defendant physicians. Because there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable juror could find in favor of the defendant. The plaintiffs' motion for judgment as a matter of law is [denied]. 3 Klisch v. Klisch argues that her motion for a new trial should have been granted because the four jury instructions were improper and were impermissibly biased in favor of MeritCare. The jury would not have found for MeritCare. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2286.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> This case is not much about grace. It is about Grace. Grace was abandoned soon after birth to the custody of the New Mexico Children. The basis of the foster family's objection was that they thought Bogey was actually a man pretending to be a woman because of Bogey's extensive facial hair. Responsibility for her case bounced around from one over worked social worker to another and concerns about her situation were investigated by an uninquisitive investigator. Grace's situation quickly turned from muddled to tragic: she died four weeks after the adoption was finalized. Apparently as the result of being beaten to death. <hr> This case is legally about the claimed failures of the Children. Particularly during the period between placement for adoption and the time adoption decree was entered. The argument is that. The adoption would not have been permitted and Grace would not have been placed in mortal danger. His state tort claims were dismissed as a matter of law. His 1983 claims against several Department employees were dismissed on summary judgment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4A9C04BF22C1E38188256CDF0083055E/$file/0116265.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Littlejohn argued that the two administrative decisions of the VA relating to his disability claims (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june96/95-3026.wpd.html">BENNE V. INTERNATIONAL BUS. MACHINES CORP. </A> Benne was employed in Kansas as a secretary and x ray technician for an orthopaedic physician. Between fifty and sixty percent of Benne's time was spent typing on either an IBM typewriter keyboard or a Gateway computer keyboard. Schlachter subsequently filed a report with the Kansas Division of Workers' Compensation that indicated he was retaining Benne as an employee despite knowing that she suffered from </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200501/03-5182a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs was Alan I. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. A VA doctor concluded that Thomas had </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2197.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Concluding that an issue underlying one of Porn's claims had been decided in the earlier proceeding and that all of Porn's claims could have been raised therein. Was involved in an automobile accident in Portland. The district court accepted that argument and granted summary judgment in favor of National Grange on the grounds that (1) one aspect of Porn's bad faith claim was barred by issue preclusion and (2) all of Porn's claims were barred by claim preclusion. The district court explained that the magistrate judge's decision not to award Porn prejudgment interest was based in part on his finding that Porn had presented no evidence to suggest that National 4 4 Grange acted in bad faith and needlessly prolonged the litigation. The court concluded that the question of National Grange's alleged bad faith conduct in litigating the first action was raised and decided in the first action. It was barred by issue preclusion. In reaching its broader holding that all five of Porn's claims were barred by claim preclusion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1460.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Palou & Miranda were on brief for appellant. Roberto Boneta and Mu oz Boneta Gonz lez Arbona Ben tez & Peral were on brief for appellee. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/07/972691P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This is the second time the case has been before this court. Was a 21 year old Native American whose car had become stuck in a snowbank on a rural South Dakota highway.2 The district court initially found Primeaux was walking toward the town of Martin on a cold night when Kenneth Scott. Scott was driving a white government vehicle with a police light bar on top under BIA authority outside the reservation. He was returning from a police training session in New Mexico. The district court originally denied vicarious liability on the ground that the police officer was not acting within the scope of his actual authority since he was outside his jurisdiction. The district court concluded that because the officer was not acting within his actual authority. There was not a sufficient nexus under state law to demonstrate the foreseeability of the assault. Once again found there was an insufficient nexus between the assault and the scope of the officer's either actual or apparent authority. She now The detailed facts of this case are set forth in our previous opinion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199803/97-7046a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Bobotek were on the briefs. An insurer may have a duty to defend a client sued by a patron who was injured by another who was intoxicated. Was viciously beaten outside The Third Edition. The Third Edition is owned and operated by 1218 Wisconsin. In the event he did not have the intent necessary to support these charges. The Third Edition was insured by Interstate Fire & Casualty Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200012/00-7108a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs were Cheryl C. The court addresses whether an employee of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/99-8053.man.html">ALLISON V. MCGHAN MED. CORP. (8/18/1999, NO. 99-8053) </A> We conclude that the district court's Daubert rulings were correct. The left implant was replaced in December 1980 by a model also manufactured by 3M/McGhan. (Appellant's Br. at 3.) In 1986 Allison was diagnosed with Hashimoto's thyroiditis (diffuse infiltration of the thyroid gland with white blood cells. Allison was diagnosed with Type I diabetes mellitus.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2502.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief. Eliot LLP were on brief. Lockhart LLP were on brief. SAB was the wholly owned subsidiary of Swiss American Holding Company. Which in turn was wholly owned by Bank of New York Inter Maritime Bank (IMB). He admitted that the funds deposited at SAB were drug proceeds that he had laundered through shell corporations organized with the help of Peter F. Notice of the impending forfeiture was published in the Antiguan Gazette and the Boston Globe. No competing claims were filed. The banks have been instructed by the Government of Antigua and Barbuda to freeze all of the assets . . . in issue in your Petition. Until the ultimate beneficial owners have been ascertained to the Government's satisfaction. This is a directive that the banks have to honor on pain of having their licences revoked and is a problem that you may well have to address on the successful conclusion of your litigation. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-6129.htm">01-6129 -- PERKINS V. CHRIS HUNT WATER HAULING CONTRACTOR, INC. -- 07/29/2002 </A> The remaining defendants were alleged to be Rucker's employers and/or principals. The district court granted these motions and those dismissals are not challenged on appeal.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/03/052798P.pdf">N:\DOCS\SUSAN\05-2798 MCANINCH V. KANSAS OPN FINAL 2.23.WPD </A> Sinclair and Wintermute were listed as directors of SNB in the application for insurance. 2 The D&O Policy provided that KBS </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/052798P.pdf">P:\DOCS\E-DOS\6-27\05-2798 MCANINCH V. KANSAS OPN FINAL 6.18.WPD </A> Sinclair and Wintermute were listed as directors of SNB in the application for insurance. 2 The D&O Policy provided that KBS </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/99-8053.man.html">ALLISON V. MCGHAN MED. CORP. (8/18/1999, NO. 99-8053) </A> We conclude that the district court's Daubert rulings were correct. The left implant was replaced in December 1980 by a model also manufactured by 3M/McGhan. (Appellant's Br. at 3.) In 1986 Allison was diagnosed with Hashimoto's thyroiditis (diffuse infiltration of the thyroid gland with white blood cells. Allison was diagnosed with Type I diabetes mellitus.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0151n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Aday was able to disarm Sowards without being injured. Aday identified Sowards as the assailant and the man who was walking across the parking lot in the direction of the apartment building (Building 3316). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0382p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This is a tragic case. I. BACKGROUND Perez's Prior Terms of Incarceration at Oakland County Jail Perez was born in 1983. Was diagnosed as having Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and as being learning disabled when he was six years old. When he was 17 years old. He pleaded guilty to two charges of felony larceny from a building and was given a six month sentence on May 11. It was initially determined that due to Perez's age he should serve his time in a boot camp. After he reported to a boot camp counselor that he was experiencing hallucinations and hearing voices telling him to quit or escape. Perez was transferred to the Oakland County Jail in late June. He was met by defendant Roberta Rice. Which was conducted by Dr. Perez was housed with a roommate and placed on a 30 minute </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-7074.html">SEYMOUR V. PRINCIPI </A> Argued for respondent appellee. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0024p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Radvansky was arrested by Telegdy and Saxer after breaking into a house. In which he was renting a room. Despite the officers' pre existing knowledge that he was currently involved in a dispute with his landlord. Radvansky was placed under arrest for burglary. Finding that there was probable cause for the arrest. Because it concluded there was no constitutional violation. Both in determining that there was probable cause to arrest Radvansky and that Telegdy and Saxer were entitled to qualified immunity. The decision below is REVERSED with respect to the Fourth Amendment claim against Telegdy and Saxer but AFFIRMED in all other respects on other grounds. Pursuant to an oral agreement whereby he paid Rosemark $450 in rent each month.1 Radvansky has stated that his rent was fully paid. Despite recognizing that this was a civil dispute between the two parties. Informing 1 Radvansky has claimed throughout the litigation that his tenancy was pursuant to an oral lease agreement. Radvansky has argued that the oral lease is enforceable through the doctrine of part performance. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053053np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8AA81159CCBF90FF882570650057106F/$file/0355403.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Dang prevailed in a jury trial on his excessive force claim against Officer Gilbert Cross of the City of Compton Police Department and was awarded compensatory damages. We hold that the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it could award punitive damages if it found that Cross acted in an oppressive manner and we conclude that this error was not harmless. Dang was the shop manager of the Compton Jewelry Exchange. Who was waiting outside the store with two other officers. Dang was in the office. Which was separated from the salesroom where the officers stood by a bulletproof window and a steel security door. The officers informed Dang that he was under arrest.1 Without patting down or searching Dang. Dang informed the officers that the ring was in a safe. Knocking him to the floor.2 As Dang was pushed to the floor. When Dang was told he was under arrest. Dang testified that Officer Cross turned the camcorder off and removed it after Dang was handcuffed. 2 Dang testified that he reached into the safe to place the rings that he was wearing in the safe for safekeeping. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2011.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief. The plaintiffs (appellants here) are 108 persons who own a total of 67 residential properties in Salinas. These homes are situated in two housing developments that have undergone repeated flooding. Such an order is appropriate only when the facts alleged in the complaint. The principal difficulty is that the government sited the housing developments along the Nigua River basin. That area has endured flooding both before and after the developments were built. These conditions have taken their toll: the plaintiffs say that their dwellings are now in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200412/03-5284a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs were Sten A. Ballenger were on the brief of appellant The American University. With him on the brief were Peter D. Nugent were on the brief for appellee Camille Saum. Their local law actions claimed that AU was liable to the plaintiffs under District of Columbia law. If the actions resting on District of Columbia law are moot. Although the trial court's framework for discovery was misguided. Because it should not have reached the merits of the negligence claims under District of Columbia law. The District Court's views on local law are a nullity and must be vacated. When AUES was transferred from civilian control to the War Department's newly formed Gas Service. Gas weapons were tested in trenches. AUES was disbanded and the Army transferred personnel and equipment to other bases. It is undisputed. The Army signed an agreement pledging to restore the buildings and grounds to the condition they were in when the Government took control of the property. This agreement appears to have been superceded. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001608.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was president and majority shareholder of Integrated Design & Construction. Krebs & Moran was a Virginia MCCOUBREY v. When it became apparent that Kellogg was a potential witness in the case. Moved to dismiss the case as to McCoubrey on the ground that he was not an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/05/962430P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We must determine whether we are reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. Any error in doing so was harmless. 816 (8th Cir. 1992) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053488np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Where Chiao was injured solely by the negligence of a co employee. Despite the policy's limitation of compensatory damages to those that are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/03-1337.htm">03-1337 -- ROGERS V. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS -- 08/02/2004 </A> The appeal is submitted without oral argument. See Fed. Plaintiff Appellant Rutherford Rogers brought several tort claims against Defendants Appellants (Defendants) after he was found ineligible for parole. BACKGROUND</center> Although the complaint is somewhat unclear. We will not reverse its decision unless the denial </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0137n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Slim Fast argues that summary judgment is inappropriate because the contract at issue is ambiguous and because a reasonable person could conclude the defendant violated its professional duty. I This is a diversity case about the construction of a floor in Slim Fast's warehouse in Covington. That design was used to solicit bids from contractors. Linkous Construction Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/00-4183.htm">00-4183 -- METROPLEX CORPORATION V. THOMPSON INDUSTRIES, INC. -- 01/10/2002 </A> Metroplex subsequently determined that many of the ties were defective. Thompson is a merchant and distributor of wood products. The contract provisions were subject to interpretation under Pennsylvania law. The railroad ties delivered by Thompson pursuant to the contract were nonconforming and defective in that they were the wrong species of wood and were improperly treated. Metroplex sought punitive damages on the theory that Thompson's alleged misconduct was deliberate. The case was subsequently transferred to the District of Utah. The district court ruled that the redacted portion of the notes was protected by the attorney client privilege. The court essentially held that this was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1462.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> 1995 is corrected as follows: On page 11. Tinkle was on brief for appellants. Are as follows. 857 of which were grouped off shore in arrangements referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/002814P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Concluding that Billingsley's claim was barred by an exception to the FTCA precluding. Billingsley was seriously injured when Thomas Saquawn. The government states in its brief that Saquawn was not acting within the scope of employment at the time of the battery. Job Corps enrollees are government employees under 29 U.S.C. § 2897(a)(4). The Court allowed a cause of action for governmental negligence to proceed when the government employee who committed the battery was not acting within the scope of his employment. The government was held to be potentially liable for the tort because it had </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E76AF88175CB3E0188256A6C00580FDC/$file/9917073.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961603.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Even when the car is outside of New York. The court decided that the plaintiffs could not establish a genuine issue of fact as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle which caused the accident and thus summary judgment was appropriate as to both defendants. We find summary judgment as to Hanifi was also improper where the district court erred in not applying New York Section 388. Ebrahim Hanifi and his brother in law Gulagha Sultan are 2 residents of New York. The Wilkes were not insured by Motor Club. 1991 at about seven a.m. the plaintiffs were traveling south in the passing lane on Interstate 95 in a vehicle owned and driven by Robert Weil. John McGovern was driving south on Interstate 95 with his wife Elda McGovern in the passenger seat when they saw the accident and proceeded to follow the white car as it drove off. The accident was also witnessed by Colleen Young. Was observed by the McGoverns as they both trailed the white car. While Young said they were three white males. Sultan further verifies that the car was in his possession in New York on the day of the accident. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/03-1209.htm">03-1209 -- ELLIOT V. TURNER CONSTRUCTION CO. -- 08/24/2004 </A> 1291 and affirm in part and reverse in part. <center>I.</center> Turner Construction was hired as the general contractor for construction of Invesco Field at Mile High Stadium in Denver. The company was required to place a temporary pedestrian bridge across the Platte River to accommodate pedestrian traffic. Elliot testified that his job responsibilities included: go[ing] to a job site . . .and show[ing] the contractor basically how the bridge was put together. How a launch . . . was enacted. What equipment is suggested as far as what you would use to push or launch the bridge with. Making sure that the bridge is put together correctly. Mak[ing] sure that all the bolts are tight and sort of an inspector. Elliot's function was in part as a consultant and in part as an inspector. He testified that as the panels were hooked together. All the bolts were tightened. All the pieces were in the right place facing the right way. He stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2002/01-15182.opn.html">ELLIS V. BARD, INC. (11/12/2002, NO. 01-15182) </A> Are liable for her mother's brain damage because of their defective labeling and specifically their failure to warn adequately of the danger of having a person other than a doctor or patient activate the morphine pump that was prescribed for her mother. FACTS</CENTER> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19958459.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Survivors of three naval aircraft crewmembers who were killed after ejecting from a crashing Lockheed manufactured aircraft. Were killed and Air Warfare Technician Second Class (AW2) Tracy Mann was injured when they ejected from a S 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/05/97-1157.htm">97-1157 -- JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.R-1 V. MOODY'S INVESTOR'S SERVICES INC. -- 05/04/1999 </A> Contending that Moody's evaluation was materially false. It reasoned that Moody's article was protected by the First Amendment because it neither stated nor implied an assertion that was provably false. BACKGROUND</center> Because we are reviewing the district court's decision to grant Moody's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Concluding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BE94C00688637A7688256E5A00707D8C/$file/9917073.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is amended as follows: 1) Add the following sentence to the end of the third paragraph of section III. Judges O'Scannlain and Gould have voted to deny the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct97/95-8459.opa.html">GRAY V. LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYS. CO. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gray v. Survivors of three naval aircraft crewmembers who were killed after ejecting from a crashing Lockheed manufactured aircraft. Were killed and Air Warfare Technician Second Class (AW2) Tracy Mann was injured when they ejected from a S 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1997/97a1564p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> This is a products liability case. Also that the profiler presented an obvious risk which could have been avoided had Surace exercised reasonable care. Whether a product's condition justifies placing the risk of loss on the supplier is a threshold question of law for the court to determine. Were factors weighing in favor of CMI. (2) in relying on Surace's own conduct to determine that the profiler was not unreasonably dangerous. We will reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We will affirm the district court's judgment insofar as it excluded Surace's expert witness Harold Brink from testifying under Fed. Was working on the New Jersey side of the Betsy Ross Bridge. The work crew was using a PR 450 pavement profiler. The crew was operating the profiler without the conveyor assembly. The crew was required to level manually the piles of debris left behind by the profiler. Surace was working as a left side sensor man. He was responsible for signaling the profiler's operator. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct97/95-8459.opa.html">GRAY V. LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYS. CO. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gray v. Survivors of three naval aircraft crewmembers who were killed after ejecting from a crashing Lockheed manufactured aircraft. Were killed and Air Warfare Technician Second Class (AW2) Tracy Mann was injured when they ejected from a S 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2002/01-15182.opn.html">ELLIS V. BARD, INC. (11/12/2002, NO. 01-15182) </A> Are liable for her mother's brain damage because of their defective labeling and specifically their failure to warn adequately of the danger of having a person other than a doctor or patient activate the morphine pump that was prescribed for her mother. FACTS</CENTER> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9DC5BB5DB5573A7988256E5A00707B9A/$file/9917073.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115182.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Are liable for her mother's brain damage because of their defective labeling and specifically their failure to warn adequately of the danger of having a person other than a doctor or patient activate the morphine pump that was prescribed for her mother. I. FACTS The factual background in this case is largely undisputed. The Product The product at issue is the Bard Ambulatory Patient Controlled Analgesia Infusion Pump (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002/012507.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was repairing a phone cable and was seriously injured when a car drove over the cable he was holding. The primary issue in this appeal is whether an employee of an independent contractor may sue the hirer of the contractor under the direct liability theories set forth in sections 410 and 414 of Chapter 15 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965 & App. 1986) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1598.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> PC was on brief for appellant. Sutton and Melick & Porter were on brief for appellee Marshal and Stevens. Including a requirement that Morris have the property appraised. Tidemark is a Virginia savings institution with its principle place of business in Newport News. Marshall 1 Newport News Savings Bank was the plaintiff during the proceedings in district court. Was substituted for Newport News Savings Bank. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1727.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Shrair P.C. were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellees. The district court ruled that the claims were barred by the doctrine of Feres v. Because the complaint was resolved on motions to dismiss. The facts are set forth as alleged in the complaint and inferences are taken in the light most favorable to the non moving party. That party is the plaintiff in the district court. Who at the time of the alleged incident was an enlisted airman of the Massachusetts Air National Guard. Day was serving with the 104th Fighter Group and was assigned to participate in a training exercise at Volk Field in Wisconsin. Day also says that he was warned by several men. Whether Day would be attacked and was assured he would not be attacked that night. During the night Day was awakened by several individuals. These including serviceman (and later defendant) James Towle and others whom Day was unable to identify (but are listed in the complaint as John Does 1 through 8). Was that he was the one who broke up the attack. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/88AB5EEB8875CF3888256B21007B0998/$file/9917073.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is amended as follows: 1) Add the following sentence to the end of the third paragraph of section III. Judges O'Scannlain and Gould have voted to deny the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1027.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Anderson LLP was on brief for appellant. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/04/951591P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This is a diversity of citizenship action arising from a traffic accident involving two tractor trailer trucks on Interstate 55 in eastern Arkansas. Ozark Plaintiff Jerry Haynes (of Arkansas) was driving a truck for Lines (of Tennessee). Defendant Richard McCormick (of Truck Missouri) was driving a truck for co defendant Bee Line Trucking (also of Missouri). Haynes' truck (going about 66 or 67 miles per hour) came up behind and struck the truck driven by McCormick (which was moving at only 20 to 30 miles per hour). Haynes was injured in the accident and sued both driver McCormick and Bee Line Trucking for damages on grounds that the McCormick/Bee Line truck was being negligently operated at below the posted minimum speed limit. The suit was originally filed by Haynes in Arkansas state court. Because there was complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and defendants. The action was removed by the defendants to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The case was tried to a federal jury sitting in Jonesboro. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTIwNzYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2076-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> (b) dismissing UBS's third party complaint seeking a declaration that the third party defendant insurance companies are required to defend and indemnify UBS in this action. The district court dismissed the complaint and the third party complaint on the ground that the claims are barred by provisions in various contracts among the parties. Plaintiffs contend that the provisions relied on by the district court either are without effect because of a contractual breach by UBS or are unenforceable as a matter of public policy. Third partydefendants TIG Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/95-4639.opa.html">COUZADO V. UNITED STATES </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Couzado v. Girard was unsuccessful in his attempts to contact the DEA in Guatemala. Was out of the investigation. Girard then contacted Childers and informed him that Customs was no longer involved in the investigation. Although Childers knew that Customs was no longer involved in the controlled delivery. Martin testified that Childers never told him that Customs was out of the investigation and that DEA never contacted him regarding the controlled delivery. On April 5. So Customs would have to handle the shipment in Miami. Girard informed Holifield that Customs was out of the operation. Holifield had no knowledge that Martin was the head of security for Belize Air or that he needed to contact Martin regarding the operation. Vital information regarding the logistics of the operation was not communicated between Customs and the DEA. On April 6. Neither agency informed the flight crew that their plane was being used for a covert controlled drug delivery. Upon the plane's arrival in Honduras. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/95-2418.opa.html">SUZUKI OF ORANGE PARK V. SHUBERT </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Suzuki of Orange Park v. FACTS Suzuki is a Florida corporation engaged primarily in the business of selling recreational watercraft. It is unknown whether Mann and Nemic pushed Shubert. The first watercraft was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/951373P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This is one of several cases spawned by the failure of Commonwealth Savings Company (Commonwealth). Nebraska. this appeal is whether the District Court 1 The issue presented in erred when it held that We appellant's Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization (RICO) claim. Is barred by the statute of limitations. affirm the judgment of the District Court. Is an unincorporated association representing creditors and depositors of the failed industrial thrift. ACC is the assignee of the receiver of Commonwealth. Corporation Appellees are the executive director and former members of (NDIGC). The gravamen of the complaint is that the appellees used the NDIGC as a RICO </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/95-2418.opa.html">SUZUKI OF ORANGE PARK V. SHUBERT </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Suzuki of Orange Park v. FACTS Suzuki is a Florida corporation engaged primarily in the business of selling recreational watercraft. It is unknown whether Mann and Nemic pushed Shubert. The first watercraft was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1329.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Hanson & DeTroy were on brief. Friedman and Friedman & Babcock were on brief. Inevitably means that much offensive and inaccurate speech will remain free from legal constraints. There are boundaries past which speakers cannot trespass. This case illustrates how difficult it is to trace those boundaries with the precision that the law demands. I. STORE WARS The events that gave rise to this litigation are controversial but. Is a family owned business that operates three retail clothing stores in Maine. Is the nation's largest retailer. It is a relative newcomer to the Maine marketplace. Olson testified that he thought Boardman was a college student researching a paper. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954639.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Girard was unsuccessful in his attempts to contact the DEA in Guatemala. Was out of the investigation. Girard then contacted Childers and informed him that Customs was no longer involved in the investigation. Although Childers knew that Customs was no longer involved in the controlled delivery. Martin testified that Childers never told him that Customs was out of the investigation and that DEA never contacted him regarding the controlled delivery. So Customs would have to handle the shipment in Miami. Customs was out of the Girard informed Holifield that Nevertheless. Holifield had no knowledge that Martin was the head of security for Belize Air or that he needed to contact Martin regarding the operation. Vital information regarding the logistics of the operation was not communicated between Customs and the DEA. Neither agency informed the flight crew that their plane was being used for a covert controlled drug delivery. Woodhull asked if any cargo was being loaded and was told that cargo was being unloaded only. did not see any cargo placed on the airplane. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992227.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. SLU contended that the government's improper approval of certain </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/02-2050.htm">02-2050 -- SLOAN V. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY -- 03/04/2004 </A> Reverse the judgment insofar as damages and remand for a new trial on compensatory and punitive damages. <center>Background</center> The insured and his family were traveling eastbound on I 40 near Grants. Shelton was seriously injured. The claims of the insured's two children were settled (for $35. Shelton were tried to a jury. 000 of coverage was available to compensate Mrs. That policy form is shown as # 9805.3 and is different from what the insurer now relies upon. The Haney court concluded that the per accident limits were not subject to the per person limits. Was actually issued. Whether the change was the correction of an inadvertent error or an attempt to prevent the insured from exercising his contractual rights was the subject of the federal court trial. It is clear. That the insurer was well aware of the potential for an excess judgment against its insured. On appeal. Because (2) the evidence supported compensatory damages and (3) there was sufficient evidence for punitive damages. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/04/972108P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We are called upon to decide whether the need for uniform interpretation of collective bargaining agreements requires that a state tort remedy be preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. Because the amended complaint reveals that the remaining tort claims are at least in part preempted. John was a Donnelly employee in Des Moines. The Union was the exclusive bargaining representative of Donnelly employees. John </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1512.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> After he was injured at work. Plaintiff Carolina Casualty Insurance Co. was RMJOB's general liability insurer. Dymowski was part of an RMJOB work crew cleaning a church. When he was restrained by an RMJOB supervisor. This was the suit that Carolina defended and settled. If the worker is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/95-4639.opa.html">COUZADO V. UNITED STATES </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Couzado v. Girard was unsuccessful in his attempts to contact the DEA in Guatemala. Was out of the investigation. Girard then contacted Childers and informed him that Customs was no longer involved in the investigation. Although Childers knew that Customs was no longer involved in the controlled delivery. Martin testified that Childers never told him that Customs was out of the investigation and that DEA never contacted him regarding the controlled delivery. On April 5. So Customs would have to handle the shipment in Miami. Girard informed Holifield that Customs was out of the operation. Holifield had no knowledge that Martin was the head of security for Belize Air or that he needed to contact Martin regarding the operation. Vital information regarding the logistics of the operation was not communicated between Customs and the DEA. On April 6. Neither agency informed the flight crew that their plane was being used for a covert controlled drug delivery. Upon the plane's arrival in Honduras. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F7252A250DFE935888256D370001EA62/$file/0156929.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is one. Although we agree with the district court that Cervantes cannot recover damages for false imprisonment or false arrest because the customs agents had reasonable cause to believe his arrest was lawful. The United States' defense to his negligence claim is patently without merit. In determining whether dismissal was properly granted. We assume all factual allegations are true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. They would have discovered 119 pounds of marijuana secreted in its bumpers. He was arrested and incarcerated for importing illegal drugs into the United States. He was released on February 9. Id. § 2674. [2] The FTCA's broad waiver of sovereign immunity is limited. [3] [avoid] extending the coverage of the Act to suits for which adequate remedies were already available. B. False arrest and false imprisonment [3] Cervantes's claims for false arrest and false imprisonment are barred by his lawful arrest upon probable cause. Either (1) effects a lawful arrest or (2) has reasonable cause to believe the arrest is lawful. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2270.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief. Were on brief for appellee. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/558B3B8892AB104A88256E5A00707D01/$file/9956234.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Vander commenced this Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) action against the United States for injuries he received while he was an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution at Safford. The district court granted summary judgment against him because he was injured while working on a prison work detail and. He was limited to the federal inmate compensation scheme. BACKGROUND Before Vander was incarcerated. He was given work with Prison Industries where he strained his knee again and aggravated the preexisting injury. They delayed obtaining the treatment to which he was entitled. Even after surgery was recommended. By the time Vander was accorded the necessary surgery. The damage was beyond complete repair. Earlier intervention probably would have been much more successful. 14291 Vander brought this action to recover for the exacerbation of the injury which was caused by the alleged negligence of prison officials in supplying the care and treatment that he was entitled to. The government moved for summary judgment on the basis that any recovery for the injury was limited to the compensation fund process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1071.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Law Offices were on brief for appellant Borras. Nadal & Rivera were on brief for appellant Asociacion Hospital Del Maestro. Vincente with whom Vicente & Cuebas were on brief for appellee. P. 50(b) because the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to prove the prima facie elements of negligence. His wife and their conjugal partnership were also named as defendants. Was also found liable but is not a party to this appeal. 2 2 445 (1st Cir. 1989). Romero was suffering from back pain and searching for solutions. Romero was still not subjected to standard conservative treatment. Borras concluded that a second operation was necessary to remedy the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/032177.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> BEACH CLUB II 3 ers association is not a party to the general contract. The general contractor is not a third party beneficiary of the master deed and is not otherwise entitled to invoke its arbitration clause. Because the arbitration provisions and legal issues are identical in the three cases before us. The facts are as follows. Is not a party to the deed. Nor is it referred to anywhere in the deed's provisions. Griffin alleged that the Association was subject to mandatory arbitration based on provisions in the general construction contract and The Beach Club master deed. Griffin argues that the Association is compelled to arbitrate its negligence and breach of warranty claims under two separate arbitration provisions. Griffin asserts that it is a third party beneficiary of the master deed. Griffin says in the alternative that the Association is equitably estopped from avoiding the master deed's arbitration provision. A. Griffin's main argument is that the arbitration clause in the general contract is enforceable against the Association through the doctrine of R.J. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B8EDAEA22DFBF288882572970081C896/$file/0515025.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: The sole issue in this case is whether the Feres doctrine. Which prohibits suit against the government for injuries that are incident to military service. McConnell's use of the boat was a benefit of his status as a service member and that the alleged negligence was subject to military orders and regulations compel us to affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to the government. Matthew Crowell were F 16 student pilots in the United States Air Force ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/98-3285.htm">98-3285 -- STORTS V. HARDEE'S FOOD SYSTEMS INC. -- 04/06/2000 </A> Hardee's' primary contentions are that the district court's instructions on the duty to provide security and the duty to warn of a dangerous condition. Were not supported by the evidence. The suit is barred by the statute of limitations. We conclude that although the evidence is sufficient to establish the existence and breach of the duty to provide security. This error requires reversal because it is impossible to determine from the general verdict whether the jury relied on the improperly submitted duty to warn theory of negligence. The remaining claims of error are without merit. She was admitted to St. Oklahoma because she had overdosed on drugs and alcohol and was suffering from depression. Of which she was an intended third party beneficiary. The case was tried to a jury. Hardee's argues that Storts's claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The jury instructions regarding duty were erroneous. A civil action is deemed commenced on the date the complaint is filed. Provided service of process is obtained within ninety days of the date of filing. See Kan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-1010.htm">01-1010 -- RUIZ V. MCDONNELL -- 08/08/2002 </A> Tender Heart was a private. Which was owned by Charles Gallegos's parents. Renee Gallegos later pleaded guilty to felony child abuse charges in connection with J.R.'s death and is now imprisoned for that crime. Tender Heart. Was licensed as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-6234.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Persaud was housed temporarily for nearly two months at the Federal Transfer Center at Oklahoma City. That defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs during this time. Persaud's objections to the magistrate's report and (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) In the caption to this case. Butt is referred as Ms. We will do the same. <hr> recommendation. Summary judgment is appropriate only where there exists no genuine issue of material fact. The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Persaud's Bivens claims against Defendants Butt and Goforth allege that both defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Butt was the associate warden at FTC OKC and Dr. Goforth was the Clinical Director of the medical clinic at OKC. Goforth argued below that they were entitled to summary judgment because Mr. Persaud failed to bring forth sufficient evidence that they were directly or personally involved in any decisions about Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan2001/991422.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> As well as against the law firm D'Ancona & Pflaum with which Brown and Klaus are associated. This appeal raises a number of issues which we will consider seriatim. 1. He provides no legal argument to support his contention that the District Court erred and we have found none. 2 I. Remick was successful in negotiating for Manfr edy an Exclusive Promotional Agreement between Kushner and Manfredy. There was a disagr eement between Remick and Manfredy over negotiations for an HBO televised fight between Manfredy and Azumah Nelson. The agreement provided Remick was to receive 5% of up to $35. I have decided to terminate your engagement. Remick claimed that he was entitled to an 8% share of Manfredy's purse because he negotiated the overarching Exclusive Pr omotional Agreement between Manfredy and Kushner . Sent a letter to Remick stating: We are writing in response to your letter of September 2. He was left with no 4 alternative other than to sever his association with you. Because you are an attorney. We are not aware of any legal principle which allows you to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012013.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. There was no evidence that any of the Cloverleaf employees contacted the off duty police officers working at the racetrack despite the presence of telephones within the tellers' booths near the site of the incident for that purpose. The off duty police officer who eventually responded after the end of the altercation could not recall how he was alerted to the situation. Testified that a patron might have informed him of the situation. The instruction read that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTMwODAtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-3080-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Dismissal was inappropriate. Dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) was inappropriate and. The BOP had in place a program statement which provided that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/951468P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The case arises under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 Summers claims that he was not appropriately The District Court1 granted Baptist's screened for treatment when he was brought in to Baptist's emergency room after a deer hunting accident. motion for summary The Hon. Summers said he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002a/014101.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> (said names being fictitious as their identities are presently unknown). (said names being fictitious as their identities are presently unknown) Christian Joseph Gibbs. This minimum one year time bar is tolled. The Gibbses and Carnival disagree as to when (or whether) Suzanne Gibbs was appointed guardian ad litem of Christian in order to serve as his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3875.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> Which is our only source of 2 No. 03 3875 facts. Stamped each check PAY TO THE ORDER OF UNION PLANTERS BANK FOR DEPOSIT ONLY LINCOLN FIDELITY ESCROW ACCOUNT 074014213 0001266190 The number at the bottom is not Smith's. Bank account number (anyway his account is in another bank). Thus the check was not endorsed by the payee. The money was transferred to that account from the plaintiff's bank account when Union Planters Bank presented the plaintiff's check to her bank for payment. Was then checked out from Lincoln Fidelity's account to various of the schemers. No. 03 3875 3 The plaintiff's theories of the bank's liability are two: conversion and negligence. Obviously an endorsement signed not by the payee but instead by the person to whom the check is endorsed is ineffective to transfer rights over the check from the payee to the endorsee and thus to the bank in which the endorsee deposits the check. So Union Planters Bank was not a holder in due course of the money when it arrived and was deposited in the bank. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1619VOL1.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> P.C. were on brief. Capone LLP were on brief. Skeen LLP was on brief. Were on brief. Affirming the judgment only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the appellee is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/98-3765.man.html">ASSOCIATED TRANSP. LINE, INC. V. PRODUCTOS FITOSANITARIOS PROFICOL EL CARMEN, S.A. (12/8/1999, NO. 98-3765) </A> The shipping documents were prepared and signed in Colombia and showed that Transport would make stops in Texas and Florida before taking the herbicide to the West Indies. The herbicide leaked onto the deck of the ship while it was in Florida waters. The chemical composition of the herbicide was far less harmful. The clean up and disposal of the spill would have cost approximately $15. Proficol contends that neither statute applies because there was no </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/01-7154.htm">01-7154 -- MONTGOMERY V. CITY OF ARDMORE -- 04/28/2004 </A> Circuit Judge. <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june96/94-4834.opa.html">FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. V. ALLIS CHALMERS CORP. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Florida Power & Light Co. v. L further contends that the district court erred in finding that granting its motion for leave to amend its complaint to add an additional claim would have been futile. L's motion to amend its complaint to add an additional contribution claim under CERCLA would have been futile. Where no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment is appropriate. Celotex Corp. v. A cause of action accrues when the last element constituting the cause of action occurs and the plaintiff knew or should have discovered the injury. City of Miami v. L knew or should have known that it had viable tort and contract claims against the manufacturers in 1977 when it received Westinghouse's and General Electric's letters warning it of the PCB contamination problem and the test results revealing the presence of PCBs in its transformers. FP &. L asserts that it could not have commenced an action in 1977 seeking to recover response costs and remedial expenses for the cleanup because Congress did not enact CERCLA until 1980 and because it did not begin to sustain such damages until 1983. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3322EF2E6E3A8E7F88256AE0005B83CC/$file/9956234.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Vander commenced this Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) action against the United States for injuries he received while he was an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution at Safford. The district court granted summary judgment against him because he was injured while working on a prison work detail and. He was limited to the federal inmate compensation scheme. BACKGROUND Before Vander was incarcerated. He was given work with Prison Industries where he strained his knee again and aggravated the preexisting injury. They delayed obtaining the treatment to which he was entitled. Even after surgery was recommended. By the time Vander was accorded the necessary surgery. The damage was beyond complete repair. Earlier intervention probably would have been much more successful. 14291 Vander brought this action to recover for the exacerbation of the injury which was caused by the alleged negligence of prison officials in supplying the care and treatment that he was entitled to. The government moved for summary judgment on the basis that any recovery for the injury was limited to the compensation fund process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0259p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Inc. to inspect a jet airplane that it was considering purchasing. The letter stated that the airplane's logbooks were not up to Federal Aviation Regulations </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1911.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> P.C. were on brief for appellant. Dan Jarcho and McKenna & Cuneo were on brief for appellee. Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship. All classes of devices are subject to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june96/94-4834.opa.html">FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. V. ALLIS CHALMERS CORP. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Florida Power & Light Co. v. L further contends that the district court erred in finding that granting its motion for leave to amend its complaint to add an additional claim would have been futile. L's motion to amend its complaint to add an additional contribution claim under CERCLA would have been futile. Where no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment is appropriate. Celotex Corp. v. A cause of action accrues when the last element constituting the cause of action occurs and the plaintiff knew or should have discovered the injury. City of Miami v. L knew or should have known that it had viable tort and contract claims against the manufacturers in 1977 when it received Westinghouse's and General Electric's letters warning it of the PCB contamination problem and the test results revealing the presence of PCBs in its transformers. FP &. L asserts that it could not have commenced an action in 1977 seeking to recover response costs and remedial expenses for the cleanup because Congress did not enact CERCLA until 1980 and because it did not begin to sustain such damages until 1983. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975760.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We conclude that the district court generally was correct that it had personal jurisdiction over Salem with respect to the claims arising out of Essex's failure to pay Posner's insurance policy claims but not with respect to Posner's allegations against Salem regarding failure to resolve the bonus dispute or SMC's claims against Salem for mismanagement of Essex. That some claims were left unaddressed. The case was closed. The district court should have dismissed the count alleging civil conspiracy against Essex for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The district court should not have dismissed the remaining claims due to international abstention but should have stayed them instead. Civil Conspiracy a. against Salem on the policies: dismissed on personal jurisdiction b. against Essex on the policies: dismissed for failure to state a claim c. against Salem on the bonus: dismissed on personal jurisdiction d. against Essex on the bonus: dismissed for failure to state a claim All dismissals are without prejudice. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975760.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We conclude that the district court generally was correct that it had personal jurisdiction over Salem with respect to the claims arising out of Essex's failure to pay Posner's insurance policy claims but not with respect to Posner's allegations against Salem regarding failure to resolve the bonus dispute or SMC's claims against Salem for mismanagement of Essex. The district court should have dismissed the count alleging civil conspiracy against Essex for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The district court should not have dismissed the remaining claims due to international abstention but should have stayed them instead. That some claims were left unaddressed. The case was closed. Civil Conspiracy a. against Salem on the policies: dismissed on personal jurisdiction b. against Essex on the policies: dismissed for failure to state a claim c. against Salem on the bonus: dismissed on personal jurisdiction d. against Essex on the bonus: dismissed for failure to state a claim All dismissals are without prejudice. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/97-5760.opn.html">POSNER V. ESSEX INS. CO. (6/25/1999, NO. 97-5760) </A> We conclude that the district court generally was correct that it had personal jurisdiction over Salem with respect to the claims arising out of Essex's failure to pay Posner's insurance policy claims but not with respect to Posner's allegations against Salem regarding failure to resolve the bonus dispute or SMC's claims against Salem for mismanagement of Essex. The district court should have dismissed the count alleging civil conspiracy against Essex for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The district court should not have dismissed the remaining claims due to international abstention but should have stayed them instead. The complaint set out seven counts. Civil Conspiracy a. against Salem on the policies: dismissed on personal jurisdiction b. against Essex on the policies: dismissed for failure to state a claim c. against Salem on the bonus: dismissed on personal jurisdiction d. against Essex on the bonus: dismissed for failure to state a claim All dismissals are without prejudice. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/98-3765.man.html">ASSOCIATED TRANSP. LINE, INC. V. PRODUCTOS FITOSANITARIOS PROFICOL EL CARMEN, S.A. (12/8/1999, NO. 98-3765) </A> The shipping documents were prepared and signed in Colombia and showed that Transport would make stops in Texas and Florida before taking the herbicide to the West Indies. The herbicide leaked onto the deck of the ship while it was in Florida waters. The chemical composition of the herbicide was far less harmful. The clean up and disposal of the spill would have cost approximately $15. Proficol contends that neither statute applies because there was no </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/01/052369P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This is a contract dispute diversity action between R.S. To whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 1 liability deriving from a workplace accident lawsuit involving a machine sold to Bacon by Cremona. It is agreed that whatever liability may derive from the goods. Alleging Bacon was obligated to indemnify and insure Cremona based on the purchase 2I. contract. Holding the contract language </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/97-5760.opn.html">POSNER V. ESSEX INS. CO. (6/25/1999, NO. 97-5760) </A> We conclude that the district court generally was correct that it had personal jurisdiction over Salem with respect to the claims arising out of Essex's failure to pay Posner's insurance policy claims but not with respect to Posner's allegations against Salem regarding failure to resolve the bonus dispute or SMC's claims against Salem for mismanagement of Essex. The district court should have dismissed the count alleging civil conspiracy against Essex for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The district court should not have dismissed the remaining claims due to international abstention but should have stayed them instead. The complaint set out seven counts. Civil Conspiracy a. against Salem on the policies: dismissed on personal jurisdiction b. against Essex on the policies: dismissed for failure to state a claim c. against Salem on the bonus: dismissed on personal jurisdiction d. against Essex on the bonus: dismissed for failure to state a claim All dismissals are without prejudice. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/95-8016.wpd.html">HAINES V. FISHER </A> The relevant facts of this case were concisely set forth in the district court's Order of November 22. Plaintiff was the local 7 Eleven clerk and was working the night shift alone on the night of the incident at issue. The three police officers and police dispatcher were employed by the Town of Torrington. The shift supervisor that evening was Sergeant Tony Fisher. While he was on duty that night and while he was training Officer Gerrard how to conduct building searches with officer Michael Reeve. Which was used in its McGruff Crime Prevention program. Intended to catch any residue that might result when the blanks were fired. Put the plan into action by telephoning plaintiff at the 7 Eleven and advising him that he should be on the lookout for an individual who was possibly armed in the area of the 7 Eleven store. Fisher responded to the call and thereafter told Haines that the vehicles were actually police department vehicles and that Haines need not be concerned. Haines argues that the staged robbery was in retaliation for his earlier call. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022411.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. On appeal we are confronted with two issues of state tort law: (1) whether Appellee CSX Transportation (CSX) owned or possessed the railcar scale house where the accident giving rise to the injuries occurred and (2) whether. Was injured when he fell approximately eight feet into an uncovered railcar scale pit. Austin Industrial is a management services company subcontracted to provide such ser SHEPPARD v. CSX sold its ownership rights in the site and maintained only a limited right to inspect and maintain the railcar scales.1 Although the industrial site was owned jointly by DSM and PCS. The scale pit into which Sheppard fell was located inside the railcar scale house. Was uncovered that morning because an employee from CSX. Was on site to calibrate the railcar scales. Persons nearing the scale house would have to stop to maneuver around the cone and would see that the plywood flooring had been removed. Wasdin was accompanied by Austin Industrial employees. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/951871.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Next door was the Alpine Forrest Mobile Home Park. There was a flurry of regulatory interest in the old and often shoddy underground storage tanks used by gasoline stations. The leak was promptly reported to state authorities. A faulty pipe was found and quickly repaired. Lou Frasco was Urban Assets' founder and prime mover. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/97-8074.man.html">RUST INT'L CORP. V. GREYSTONE POWER CORP. (1/26/1998, NO. 97-8074) </A> Senior District Judge. PER CURIAM: This case arises from a motor vehicle accident in which a vehicle driven by Appellee James Curtis Terry (Terry) and a vehicle driven by Appellee Farid Habeishi (Habeishi) collided in an intersection where the traffic signal was inoperative. Fulton County was informed of the power outage and sent a technician to examine the intersection. Fulton County's technician determined that the problem was a lack of power flowing to the signals from Greystone's side of the power line. The Greystone technicians again examined the connections and concluded that the problem was with the connector. The repair effort took 5 10 minutes to complete. The procedural history of this case is fairly complex. Several claims were settled. Four claims against Greystone were tried to the jury: (1) the claim of Terry for Terry's personal injuries. The jury concluded that Greystone was negligent and that Greystone's negligence was a contributing proximate cause of the collision. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/032766P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were barred by a two year Kansas statute of limitations. Its claims are timely under Missouri law. I BES is a Kansas corporation that erects structural steel and metal buildings. JLG is a Pennsylvania corporation that designs. The truck bed on which the crane was mounted. Sherry sent a report to BES concluding the cause of the failure was a brittle fracture due to a crack likely present in the metal during the manufacturing process. The crane was lifting two painters in a personnel basket when the boom suddenly retracted. Both of whom have since sued BES. 2 BES filed suit against JLG on November 21. As well as indemnity or contribution for any liability BES may have to the homeowners or the painters as a result of the new crane's failure. Alleging Powerscreen was responsible for BES's claims pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement between JLG and Powerscreen. Powerscreen argued BES's claims originated in Kansas and were therefore subject to Kansas's two year statute of limitations. Therefore the claims were timely under Missouri's five year statute of limitations. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/032353np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Neary provided coverage for injuries arising from an explosion that is alleged in an underlying action against Neary. 1 We will affirm. Was insured under a homeowner's insurance policy that Allstate issued. Which was designed to be mounted on the back of an open truck. Was equipped with a propane gas stove. The transaction was a model of simplicity. Lytle and his wife went to Neary's place of business where the camper was kept. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-8053.htm">99-8053 -- HUTTON V. DEERE & CO. -- 04/05/2000 </A> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Robin L. S is a Casper. Is an authorized dealer of equipment manufactured by Deere. The particular delimber Hutton viewed was a Model PP 453 delimber. It is undisputed that all delimbers have to be mounted onto some motorized carrying equipment. The purpose of a Deere excavator is to dig dirt. Which are used for digging. Must first be removed and then a delimber is attached. The excavator was shipped from Houston to S&. The Deere 690E is referred to as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/032069P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Revolves around a loan that was made by Brenton First National Bank (the Bank) to Audio Odyssey. Which was secured by. Was guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (the SBA) pursuant to a Loan Guaranty entered into by the SBA and the Bank in 1978. Inasmuch as the provision of the Loan Guaranty alleged to have been breached did not impose a duty on the SBA to provide written consent before the Bank could take action to enforce its rights as a lender to Odyssey. The relief sought (damages) is unavailable as a matter of law under the Iowa economic loss doctrine. The government cedes its sovereign immunity to the extent that it will allow itself to be sued </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/97-8737.man.html">COHEN V. UNITED STATES (8/26/1998, NO. 97-8737) </A> Plaintiff William Cohen was injured when he was attacked by another prisoner. Cohen was sentenced to eighteen months in prison for copyright violations. Cohen was watching television in a common area of the prison. Cohen is unable to walk normally. alleging that the government's negligence was responsible for his injuries. Its factual finding that the BOP was negligent. Whether the United States is entitled to application of the discretionary function exception to the FTCA is a question of law we review de novo. DISCUSSION</CENTER> Cohen's theory of liability is that the BOP was negligent in classifying Garcia as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/02-8046.htm">02-8046 -- ESTATE OF ADAM HARSHMAN V. JACKSON HOLE MOUNTAIN RESORT CORP. -- 08/16/2004 </A> Sixteen year old Adam Harshman was fatally injured while snowboarding over a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0362n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Plaintiff appellant Brenda Slone McGee appeals the district court's decision upholding the bankruptcy court's finding that her judgment against defendant is a dischargeable debt under the bankruptcy code. The order of the district court is affirmed. The plaintiff was awarded a judgment in the amount of $1. Finding that there was no evidence in the record that defendant intentionally injured Slone. Summary judgment is proper </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/12/042714P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> I Hart and Dyer are police officers employed by Little Rock. The subpoena was received by Stacey Witherell. Made copies of the complete files and gave them to the lawyer on the same day the subpoena was received. The copies were seized and destroyed. Little Rock's motion for summary judgment was denied and the case proceeded to trial. They contended the release of information was especially egregious because it placed them in grave danger from criminals who might retaliate against them or family members. The district court also allowed evidence of an incident where Hart and Dyer were shot at during an unrelated drug arrest. The incident did not involve Bullock but was apparently admitted to illustrate the dangerousness of their jobs and to show their safety concerns were well founded. Once attempted to hire an undercover police officer to kill them.1 The jury concluded Little Rock's release of the personnel files was a violation of the officers' substantive due process rights and awarded each $225. Little Rock contends the district court erred in denying its motion for JAML because the evidence was insufficient to support the substantive due process claims. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978737.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Plaintiff William Cohen was injured when he was attacked by another prisoner. Cohen was sentenced to eighteen months in prison for copyright violations. Cohen was watching television in a common area of the prison. Cohen is unable to walk normally. Alleging that the government's negligence was responsible for his injuries. Its factual finding that the BOP was negligent. Whether the United States is entitled to application of the discretionary function exception to the FTCA is a question of law we review de novo. DISCUSSION Cohen's theory of liability is that the BOP was negligent in classifying Garcia as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2000/986368.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> F&D asserts that the district court's ruling on the discovery issue is correct. It is entitled to summary judgment because the loss City Federal sustained is not covered by the bond. We will reverse the district court's order of summary judgment. In view of the circumstance that all of the relevant deposition testimony is not in the record before this court. We have relied on those factual statements and other portions of the record in deciding this appeal. To the extent that the parties' briefs indicate that there are disputed facts. We will refer to the RTC's version because we must view the facts in the light most favorable to it. Because this appeal is intensely fact driven. It is necessary to set forth the factual background in some detail. City Collateral was City Federal's mortgage warehouse lending operation.3 Among other things. Lyndon Merkle ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/11/01-8006.htm">01-8006 -- STUART V. COLORADO INERSTATE GAS CO. -- 11/27/2001 </A> The district court's jurisdiction was based on 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-1151.htm">99-1151 -- DEANZONA V. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER -- 08/02/2000 </A> Which were eventually joined. Which is located in City Park. Camps I and II at City Park combined because only fifty five children arrived instead of the ninety children who were enrolled in the two camps. Eight counselors were supervising fifty five children. At that time Redd walked twenty five yards to the lake edge where two other counselors were supervising a group of children who were fishing. The next morning Redd's body was found in Ferril Lake. Brooks is the manager of the Denver Department of Parks and Recreation. Brooks was only indirectly responsible for the SIP program. Brooks was not involved with policymaking for SIP. Brooks's sole contact with the SIP program was to greet the counselors at the beginning of their training program. JURISDICTION </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978737.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Plaintiff William Cohen was injured when he was attacked by another prisoner. Cohen was sentenced to eighteen months in prison for copyright violations. Cohen was watching television in a common area of the prison. Cohen is unable to walk normally. Alleging that the government's negligence was responsible for his injuries. Its factual finding that the BOP was negligent. Whether the United States is entitled to application of the discretionary function exception to the FTCA is a question of law we review de novo. DISCUSSION 2 Cohen's theory of liability is that the BOP was negligent in classifying Garcia as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/97-8074.man.html">RUST INT'L CORP. V. GREYSTONE POWER CORP. (1/26/1998, NO. 97-8074) </A> Senior District Judge. PER CURIAM: This case arises from a motor vehicle accident in which a vehicle driven by Appellee James Curtis Terry (Terry) and a vehicle driven by Appellee Farid Habeishi (Habeishi) collided in an intersection where the traffic signal was inoperative. Fulton County was informed of the power outage and sent a technician to examine the intersection. Fulton County's technician determined that the problem was a lack of power flowing to the signals from Greystone's side of the power line. The Greystone technicians again examined the connections and concluded that the problem was with the connector. The repair effort took 5 10 minutes to complete. The procedural history of this case is fairly complex. Several claims were settled. Four claims against Greystone were tried to the jury: (1) the claim of Terry for Terry's personal injuries. The jury concluded that Greystone was negligent and that Greystone's negligence was a contributing proximate cause of the collision. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/001157.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Which were allegedly operated as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug98/97-8737.man.html">COHEN V. UNITED STATES (8/26/1998, NO. 97-8737) </A> Plaintiff William Cohen was injured when he was attacked by another prisoner. Cohen was sentenced to eighteen months in prison for copyright violations. Cohen was watching television in a common area of the prison. Cohen is unable to walk normally. alleging that the government's negligence was responsible for his injuries. Its factual finding that the BOP was negligent. Whether the United States is entitled to application of the discretionary function exception to the FTCA is a question of law we review de novo. DISCUSSION</CENTER> Cohen's theory of liability is that the BOP was negligent in classifying Garcia as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991269.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> A nurse observed that Young was lying face down on the floor in the emergency room. Although the theory of liability is not apparent from the allegations of the original complaint. The claims were asserted against Mount Rainier and Officer Jody Shegan. The Parents alleged that the defendants failed to protect Young from harm while he was in their custody and care. The Parents alleged that officers committed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1183.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Bird & Hestres were on brief for appellants. Grafam & Lausell were on brief for appellees. The facts are undisputed. General Background </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/953700P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Rodney Kiemele (Kiemele) was driving himself and three co employees to work at an oil rig outside of Portal. The road on which Kiemele was traveling was covered with compacted snow and ice. The train was stopped on Department of Transportation Crossing No. 699031G. The crossing was marked with an advance warning sign and crossbucks. The Kiemeles brought this diversity action against Soo Line alleging that Soo Line was negligent in its operation of the train. The district court found that no material facts were in dispute. That Soo Line demonstrated it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3313.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Are as follows. The agreement required that Union Pacific and BNSF </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1143.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> John Ward Llambias was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellees. *Of the District of Puerto Rico. The main question presented in this appeal is whether appellant properly notified the agency for which she worked. The letter was sufficient as to part of the claim. Was removed from her post at the cash register of Fort Buchanan's Army Post Exchange store on June 29. She was interrogated for about forty five minutes in her supervisor's office. She was then taken to the office of Mr. Where she was again subjected to a forty five minute interrogation. She was threatened with investigation by the FBI. After what she alleges was considerable harassment in complete disregard for her pregnant condition. She was then returned to the office of her supervisor. No charges were pressed against plaintiff. Stating that appellant was filing an administrative complaint. The letter specifically mentioned that appellant was mistreated by officers and agents of the agency in a manner which resulted in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/04/043386P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Claiming that the action was collaterally estopped. Seeking recovery for the workers' compensation benefits that were paid and payable (i.e. Determined the amount of subrogation damages to which Conwed was entitled: the lesser of (1) the amount of benefits actually paid and payable through workers' compensation. The amount of workers' compensation benefits paid and payable was less than the tort damages attributable to Union Carbide. The tort damages attributable to Union Carbide were less than the benefits paid. The remaining 118 asbestosis claims were stayed pending the appeal. Conwed argues that the court instead should have applied the allocation of fault only to the common law damages determined by the jury. Arguing that the second jury trial was barred by collateral estoppel. Because the issue of whether Union Carbide's warnings regarding its asbestos were adequate already had been conclusively established in the first trial concerning mesothelioma. If the action was not barred. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981790.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 1 the Yosts' action was therefore untenable. Christine Yost was injured in an automobile accident on June 23. Her car was struck by a vehicle operated by Dean Allen Miller. Miller was drunk at the time of the accident. Was quickly apprehended. The car Miller was driving (1) was owned by a resident of Pennsylvania. (2) was titled and regularly garaged in that state. (3) was insured by Travelers through a Pennsylvania 1 Johnson v. Travelers suggested that the liability policy limit was $15. Which in the case of West Virginia is $20. Who filed an answer asserting not only that Miller was without fault and that Mrs. Also that recovery was barred by such unlikely defenses as assumption of the risk. Lack of personal jurisdiction.2 Apparently someone on Travelers' side decided the answer went too far because an amended answer was later filed deleting the statute of limitations defense and admitting as fact that Miller had indeed been drunk at the time of the accident. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-8091.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> We affirm. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Summary judgment is appropriate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4577_013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Dismissed this diversity personal injury suit (the substantive issues in which are governed by Wisconsin law) on the ground that without expert testimony the plaintiffs could not prove their case. The jurisdictional statement in the appellants' 2 No. 05 4577 brief states that the federal district court's jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3911_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Terry Winters' hand was severed at the wrist while he was working at a food processing plant. The purchased production lines were disassembled. The valve was located at a junction of three tubes on one of the cake lines. The third tube connected to a storage area that was used when cake mix was not needed at the mixer. Air pressure was used to move the cake mix through the tubes and also to adjust the valve's position. There is no evidence in the record that Fru Con altered the design or structure of the tubes or diverter Pinnacle Foods Group. Inc. acquired Aurora during the pendency of the proceedings before the district court and was substituted as a defendant. Fru Con effectively transplanted the cake and frosting lines </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1996/96a1415p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> The plaintiff is John Serbin. As the sun was rising on December 28. Struggled to move a stuck piece of equipment — known as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2180.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Hardman were on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. In the spotlight is Section 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/01-8021.htm">01-8021 -- SAPONE V. GRAND TARGHEE INC. -- 10/03/2002 </A> Daya argues that the district court erred when it found that (1) falling from a bolting horse is an inherent risk that creates no duty on the part of the defendants under the Wyoming Recreation Safety Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1925.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was on brief. Cuebas were on brief. With whom </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/55FD1970A5A6FB7A88256E68007CB036/$file/0216847.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> To which were annexed certain supplemental state law claims. The plaintiffs appellants are Stephen Turner. An entity that employed the Turners.1 The defendants appellees are Ah Beng Yeo. A law firm in which Cook is a partner. The plaintiffs appellants' federal claims are that actions taken by Yeo and Martini. WPS was owned by the Golden Gate Trust. A family trust of which the Turner children were beneficiaries. Provided medical services to WPS and Susana Turner was WPS' general manager. Perkiss & Lew to assist in collection of the judgment assistance which appears to have continued until March. Subsequently an amended complaint was filed. WPS was not a plaintiff on the FDCPA claim or on the state law claims other than the Unfair Competition Act claim. The Turners asserted that because WPS was not owned. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct2000/993406.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> David Oddi was catastrophically injured in a one vehicle accident when the truck he was driving struck a guardrail and a bridge abutment. Ford and Grumman removed the actions to the district court where they were consolidated.1 Ford and 1. Jurisdiction in the district court was premised upon diversity of citizenship. 28 U. Oddi is a citizen of Pennsylvania. Ford is a Delaware corporation and Grumman is a New York corporation. 2 Grumman eventually moved for summary judgment based upon their contention that Oddi could not establish a prima facie case because his proposed expert testimony failed to satisfy the requirements of Daubert v. We will affirm. Oddi was driving a bread truck owned and maintained by Continental Baking Company. He was proceeding northbound at exit 14 of Interstate 79 near Pittsburgh. Oddi's legs were crushed so badly by the force of the accident that they both had to be amputated. Oddi's left arm was also permanently injured. The truck was a 1976 special order Ford M 5000 Stripped Chassis that Continental had ordered through a Ford dealership for use as a bread delivery truck. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052760p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> A bankruptcy trustee was appointed. The malpractice claim founders on two grounds: the company was not harmed by its accountants' actions. In any event the affidavit submitted to support the claim was a sham. PRSI was a fraudulent enterprise. CitX's stock sales were illegal under federal and Pennsylvania law. A receiver was appointed for it. PRSI was CitX's only significant client. At the time PRSI was closed it owed CitX over $2. This was all that was keeping the company theoretically in the black. It was able to sell more securities for over $1. CitX was suspect from the start: one of the original members of CitX's board. Maintains that he was not involved in the company and that his signatures on corporate documents were forged. 4 1 In July 2001. The case was later converted to Chapter 7. Gary Seitz was appointed as trustee.2 B. Schoen and Detweiler compile the financials The defendantsappellees in this case are Robert Schoen. We will refer to the company as CitX and the plaintiffappellant as Seitz. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0004p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The sole issue on appeal is whether Mark S. I. Mounts is a 51 year old man who has been a railroad employee all his career. Which was primarily based in Ohio. He was exposed to a variety of loud noises in connection with his work. Grand Trunk Western R.R. 3 Mounts's attempts to distinguish Aparacio in order to obtain relief for the worsening of his condition that occurred within the three years prior to filing suit are unavailing. 444 U.S. at 122 23 (stating that the goal of the discovery rule is to encourage an employee to inform himself about his condition and bring claims promptly). Nor does Mounts have a viable claim for a continuing tort under FELA. Mounts was administered a hearing test. After which he was told that he had a hearing loss. The doctor's notes state that Mounts said he was having difficulty hearing communications at work and that his hearing had decreased over a period of time. Mounts was directed to undergo more extensive testing in Detroit. Mounts was out of work for five and a half weeks because of this hearing testing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2002/00-13222.opn.html">BARNETT V. OKEECHOBEE HOSP. (2/25/2002, NO. 00-13222) </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2002/00-13222.opn.html">BARNETT V. OKEECHOBEE HOSP. (2/25/2002, NO. 00-13222) </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4283.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> TACHA. I. BACKGROUND John and Joan Miller were injured in a car accident caused by Arthur Valle. The Millers assert that the Government is liable for damages under the FTCA for negligently serving alcohol to Mr. Arguing that the Dramshop Act is a strict liability statute and therefore not within the scope of the FTCA's immunity waiver. The Utah Supreme Court held that Utah's Dramshop Act is a strict liability statute. The court explained that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200311688.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The scope of appellate review is not limited to the precise question certified by the district court because the district court's order. Is brought before the court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961811.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The court's jurisdiction was based upon diversity of citizenship. The Plaintiffs were unable to move out of the way of the Defendant's vehicle. The Defendant's vehicle struck both Plaintiffs. 1 It is disputed whether the Plaintiffs reached the intersection farther north at Coastal Highway and 118th Street. The Defendant testified that he was traveling in the second lane of southbound traffic at all times prior to the accident. The Defendant stated that he did not see the Plaintiffs in the highway until they were in his lane of traffic. He testified that he was only able to slam on his brakes and turn his wheel to the right to attempt to avoid hitting them. The Defendant testified that he saw the Plaintiffs from approximately fifty meters (164 feet) and that he was traveling at approximately thirty eight to thirty nine miles per hour. The Plaintiffs' expert testified that an average driver with average reaction time should have been able to stop in 110 to 112 feet. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041224p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Argue that the District Court should have remanded their claims to state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Maintain that the District Court should have dismissed the claims entirely. As they depend on state law that is expressly preempted by ERISA § 514. The insurance providers argue that the District Court should have dismissed the claims because the state law decision on which they rely. Jurisdiction is proper in the District Court. The underlying claims are preempted by ERISA and must be dismissed. Benjamin Edmondson (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-5223.htm">99-5223 -- VBF, INC. V. CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE CO. -- 08/28/2001 </A> In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200614909.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Fluor contends that it is entitled to (1) judgment as a matter of law because Proctor failed to establish that Fluor breached a duty of care that proximately caused Proctor's injuries arising from a manufacturing plant accident or. We affirm the district court's denial of Fluor's motion for judgment as a matter of law but conclude that Fluor is entitled to a new trial. Which are a series of connected tubs that contain chemical solution baths used in the manufacture of acrylic fiber. Proctor was responsible for maintaining quality control by recording readings related to temperature. E&I technicians were responsible for diagnosing problems and making repairs to the machines. Terry was a direct Solutia employee. Lawrence was a Fluor contract employee working full time at Solutia's Decatur plant. Lawrence told Proctor that the vortex 3 breaker in the TM machine was clogged and that Proctor needed to clean it. He discovered that the breaker was actually clogged only twenty percent of those times. The solution bath was not boiling out or spilling. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0025p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Plaintiff was traveling aboard one of Defendant's buses from Michigan to Georgia. (J.A. at 984) The bus did not have an entryresistant barrier next to the driver's seat. Sands was driving the bus at an approximate speed of 65 to 70 miles per hour when. Plaintiff served Defendant with a Request for Production of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/11/99-6236.htm">99-6236 -- FALCON BELTING INC. V. RTP CO. -- 11/07/2000 </A> Holding that Falcon's tort claims were barred under Minnesota's economic loss statute. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0135p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Foremost among the issues we must decide in this appeal is whether the inclusion of stock purchase warrants along with a promissory note given in consideration of a loan renders the transaction subject to federal and Tennessee securities laws. The loans were intended to serve as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961492.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The United States was substituted as the sole defendant and the complaint was dismissed on the ground that the United States had sovereign immunity from suit. Was serving as Director of the Echocardiography Laboratory at the N.I.H. when the complained of incidents began. The defendants were his colleagues. Maron discovered that Fananapazir was engaging in what Maron believed to be scientific misconduct. Maron's specific allegations are detailed in his complaints and include assertions that the doctors removed him from positions of power in the Lab. Told patients that he was no longer employed at the N.I.H. It is noteworthy that. The district court denied Maron's attempts to challenge the certification because our circuit law at the time held that certifications were dispositive on the issue of substitution and were not judicially reviewable. The district court eventually dismissed Maron's complaint pursuant to the Feres doctrine and on the ground that suit against the United States is barred by sovereign immunity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug12/02-41655-CV1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Which we reproduce below: Carlton and Latanza Gaddis were stopped at a street intersection when a postal employee drove his government vehicle into theirs. Who was pregnant. Arguing that there was no allegation of a conflict of interest among the Gaddises nor of any prejudice to Courtlin's interests. An infant or incompetent person who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem. Except when express provision therefor is made either in a statute of the United States or in these rules. 5 and guardian ad litem fees are not included in § 1920. Bean's claimed expenses were for his legal work as an attorney on behalf of Courtlin. § 2412(a)(1) is the applicable provision governing costs to be taxed against the nonprevailing government in an FTCA case. 5 Section 1920. The court fully considered the government's arguments regarding the taxation of guardian ad litem fees and determined that it was bound to follow our post Crawford Fitting precedents in Dickerson v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-8068.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> They were infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200515088.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> One such letter was mailed to American Media. Two wrongful death suits were brought by Maureen Stevens. Alleging that they were the source of the anthrax that killed Mr. Battelle removed the state case to federal court and the two suits were consolidated for discovery purposes. The suit alleged further that the government knew it was utilizing an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3200.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> I. Advantage is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Kansas. Advantage was covered under a commercial general liability insurance policy issued by Maryland (the Policy). We [Maryland] will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/94-9152.ma2.html">MORSTEIN V. NATIONAL INS. SERVS. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Morstein v. Circuit Judge: This case was taken en banc to clarify the law in our circuit regarding state law preemption by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/mar97/95-6434.wpd.html">MIDWEST CITY REG'L HOSP. V. GEN. INS. CO. OF AMERICA </A> This matter is before the court on appellant's petition for rehearing. The materials submitted by appellant have been reviewed by the members of the hearing panel. Who conclude that the original disposition was correct. The petition for rehearing is denied on the merits. Footnote one on page two of the order and judgment is amended to read: In its order granting summary judgment to General. 954 (10th Cir. 1992) (issues designated for review are waived if not actually argued in the party's brief). Even when issue is listed in appellant's notice of appeal). The amended order and judgment will reissue this date. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. General Insurance Company of America (General).(1) The district court concluded that although the claims against General were not res judicata. They were precluded by a general release and a release and satisfaction of judgment in a prior action brought by Midwest against Ben Kennedy & Associates. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2003/012998.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> They also claim that the District Court should have limited Montgomery County's remedy to repair and replacement of the defective machines and should have off set the judgment against them by the amount of Carson's settlement with the County. We will affirm. The bid explicitly stated that it was for an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2003/012312.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Shannon Schieber was raped and murdered in her second floor apartment at 251 S. 23rd Street. The District Court's order denying summary judgment will be reversed. This matter will be remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of Officers Woods and Scherff. I. The following account of the relevant facts reflects the undisputed evidence in the summary judgment record except where the contrary is expressly noted. Were watching television when they heard a noise that made Greeley think that Schieber was in a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/10/983980P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Appellant is the Trustee in Bankruptcy for the estate of U.S.C. An accounting firm which was allegedly negligent in its evaluation of the two companies purchased by U.S.C.I. The company was incorporated and had its plant in Kansas. Advised U.S.C.I. that his companies were looking for a buyer. ABC and HPI were also involved in marketing plastic products. He was hired by U.S.C.I. on January 2. ABC and HPI had represented that their inventories were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516904.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Have failed to comply with this Court's order in Parker v. Defendant was ordered to pay a total of $1 million in damages to the plaintiff. Defendant was further ordered to implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. 3 reversed the damages award because the district court did not instruct the jury that damages were only recoverable by a party that owned or occupied the Parker property during the relevant time period. Parker's children were included in the damage award. Defendants are deemed to have a permit by rule and do not need any other solid waste handling permits. Plaintiffs failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that defendants were in violation of the district court's order to develop and implement a legally sufficient SWPPP. STANDARD OF REVIEW There are three issues presented on appeal: I. A defendant's present ability to comply with a court order is subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. The district court is in the best position to weigh the competing interests set forth in § 1367(c) and [United Mine Workers v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/062385P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This is a dispute between homeowners. The subdivision is limited to five lot owners. Three lot owners refused approval because the house was not set back from the street as far as it could be. The subdivision hired Julien </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0177p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The district court held that coverage was available under the American National policy. The district court's judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part. Connected to one wall of the reservoir was a semi circular manhole structure. The reservoir and the manhole structure shared one common wall that was made of concrete. The rest of the manhole structure was made of masonry. The district court held that coverage was available under the American National commercial general liability policy. Show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/jan97/95-6434.wpd.html">MIDWEST CITY REGIONAL HOSP. V. GENERAL INS. CO. </A> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. General Insurance Company of America (General).(1) The district court concluded that although the claims against General were not res judicata. They were precluded by a general release and a release and satisfaction of judgment in a prior action brought by Midwest against Ben Kennedy & Associates. We hold that the grant of summary judgment to General was error. Summary judgment is appropriate where </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2179.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> P.C. was on brief for appellant. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/April1995/95a1021p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> While six year old Urvashi was playing a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200514375.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Individuals that were present during the execution of the warrants. The agents' actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Our review of the Notice of Appeal reveals that Cabral is not listed as one of the plaintiffs appealing to this court. Thus she is not an appellant to this action. The INS determined that the petitions for asylum were legally void and refused to consider their merit.2 The INS then revoked Gonzalez's custody of Elian. Appellants are individuals who were either on Gonzalez's property. Demonstrators that were either behind a barricade or advancing towards Gonzalez's property. Appellants allege that during the execution of the warrants a This decision was eventually appealed to this court and we affirmed the INS's findings that the petitions were legally void. The claims were filed on April 22. In which fifty two plaintiffs demanded $100 million in damages for constitutional violations arising from the execution of A Standard Form 95 is the standard form used to file a claim against the government under the FTCA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/00B630DC67B0379988256E5A00707A68/$file/9836088.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Whether a developer's right to procedural due process is violated when the county planning agency fails to provide a hearing before halting a previously approved land development project. Elizabeth Powers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/94-9152.ma2.html">MORSTEIN V. NATIONAL INS. SERVS. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Morstein v. Circuit Judge: This case was taken en banc to clarify the law in our circuit regarding state law preemption by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BF66C050862668FA88256A000060809B/$file/9836088.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Whether a developer's right to procedural due process is violated when the county planning agency fails to provide a hearing before halting a previously approved land development project. Elizabeth Powers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTM0Mjlfc28ucGRm/05-3429_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002592.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Jones faxed to OCL a document which stated as follows: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971523.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> I. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1053.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> health officials prescribed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/96-8730.man.html">SCHAFER V. TIME, INC. (6/8/1998, NO. 96-8730) </A> Circuit Judge: This diversity case requires us to parse the often conflicting and confusing concepts of malice as they have evolved in Georgia's libel laws. Most notably whether specific instances of misconduct are admissible to prove character under Federal Rule of Evidence 405(b) in an action for libel under Georgia law. Although these evidentiary issues are not dispositive given our decision to reverse the district court on the grounds mentioned above. A terrorist's bomb was then. Is now. Had targeted Pan Am 103 to eliminate several of the passengers who were members of a United States counter terrorism team attempting to rescue United States hostages in Lebanon. Is alleged to have told Iranian officials that McKee [one of the U.S. agents] was booked on Flight 103. See Schafer R. Is Michael Schafer. The instructions included a recitation of Georgia's statutory definition of libel: [A] libel is a false and malicious defamation of another expressed in print. Only that Time failed to exercise ordinary care in ascertaining whether the information it published was true or false before it could find in Schafer's favor. After describing these elements. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/96-8730.man.html">SCHAFER V. TIME, INC. (6/8/1998, NO. 96-8730) </A> Circuit Judge: This diversity case requires us to parse the often conflicting and confusing concepts of malice as they have evolved in Georgia's libel laws. Most notably whether specific instances of misconduct are admissible to prove character under Federal Rule of Evidence 405(b) in an action for libel under Georgia law. Although these evidentiary issues are not dispositive given our decision to reverse the district court on the grounds mentioned above. A terrorist's bomb was then. Is now. Had targeted Pan Am 103 to eliminate several of the passengers who were members of a United States counter terrorism team attempting to rescue United States hostages in Lebanon. Is alleged to have told Iranian officials that McKee [one of the U.S. agents] was booked on Flight 103. See Schafer R. Is Michael Schafer. The instructions included a recitation of Georgia's statutory definition of libel: [A] libel is a false and malicious defamation of another expressed in print. Only that Time failed to exercise ordinary care in ascertaining whether the information it published was true or false before it could find in Schafer's favor. After describing these elements. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3753_011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Which prohibits the initiation of an action against the United States under the FTCA unless an administrative claim is first presented to the appropriate federal agency. Although Sayyah submitted a medical malpractice administrative claim to the VA after his cancer was diagnosed. A claim for wrongful death was never presented to the agency after Sayyah died. I. Background The complaint alleges that in September 1998 Sayyah was treated at the Evansville VA clinic by Dr. Sayyah was correctly diagnosed in March 1999 as suffering from Stage III cancer of the esophagus. This claim was denied on November 27. Discussion The FTCA is a limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States and imposes liability </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1997/97a1500p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Alleging that they were negligent in their handling of two CMU patents. Alleging that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is responsible for any damages suffered by CMU. The district court granted summary judgment against CMU on the ground that CMU could not have suffered any actual loss as a result of Schwartz's alleged professional negligence. Because we believe that the district court's conclusion that CMU suffered no actual loss is premature. We will vacate the district court's order and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) because this is a civil action sounding in tort in which the United States is a defendant. We have jurisdiction of the district court's summary judgment order. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291. The crux of CMU's complaint is that Schwartz erroneously and negligently disclaimed a CMU patent and that the error was not corrected for fifteen months after the PTO published notice of the disclaimer in its Official Gazette. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTE2MDRfc28ucGRm/05-1604_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/94-3324.man.html">JOHNSON ENTERPRISES OF JACKSONVILLE, INC. V. FPL GROUP, INC. (12/18/1998, NO. 94-3324) </A> The structure of the opinion is as follows: Part I provides the factual background to the dispute. Part VII offers some concluding thoughts. <CENTER>I.</CENTER> The legislative backdrop against which this controversy arose was the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/031857p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We will reverse the order of the District Court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Overview of Affected Parties The underlying matter in this appeal is an accounting malpractice action. The Trustee's principal allegation is that Price Waterhouse erroneously reported in its audit that accrued interest on Litigation Trust accounts belonged to the debtor rather than to the Litigation Trust. Underlying this claim was a suit between the Litigation Trust and the debtor. Price Waterhouse's erroneous reports were relied on by the bankruptcy court to the Litigation Trust's detriment. Is not a party to the malpractice action. The Trustee alleges the debtor's estate would still be affected by the malpractice suit because the Litigation Trust is effectively a continuation of the bankruptcy estate. Who were former creditors of the debtor's estate. Is not a continuation of the bankruptcy estate for jurisdictional purposes. Price Waterhouse contends the debtor is only tangentially affected by this malpractice action after it assigned away its interests in the litigation claims. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1006.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Sawyer & Brewster were on brief for appellant. I. Tak How is a Hong Kong corporation with its only place of business in Hong Kong. Its sole asset is the Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza Harbour View in Hong Kong ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/97-9357.man.html">CANADYNE-GEORGIA CORP. V. NATIONSBANK (8/11/1999, NO. 97-9357) </A> Claiming they were liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). Woolfolk was a general partner in WCW. His will named the Bank as co executor of his estate. It was purchased by a corporate affiliate of Canadyne. It was not until the 1990s that the EPA required Canadyne to clean up the Site. Canadyne sued. Concluding the Bank was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11F0921BC90EF60A88256FFE008233A4/$file/0415744.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Senior Circuit Judge: Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company appeals the district court's summary judgment in this insurance coverage dispute involving the United States government.1 Underlying the coverage dispute is a state tort action arising out of an auto accident. Was insured by Nationwide. At the time of the accident was an active duty member of the armed services of the United States. Because Liberatore was a federal employee. This case was heard and decided by a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). LIBERATORE 5175 would have responsibility for indemnifying him if. He were acting within the scope of his employment. The district court determined that Liberatore was not acting within the scope of his employment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Liberatore was traveling from his permanent duty station in Norfolk on temporary additional detached duty (TAD) travel o