Starting April 16th 2005 the E-Government Act of 2002 requires that the court provide access to the substance of all written opinions issued by the court, regardless of whether such opinions are to be published in the official court reporter, in a text searchable format.
Written Opinions filed after April 16, 2005, are now searchable and available at no cost to ECF and PACER users.
ECF USERS: Enter your ECF login and password and click on the "Reports" option on the blue menubar. Click on the "Written Opinions" report to search for opinions or to view case specific opinions filed after April 16, 2005. You will NOT be prompted to enter your PACER login and password.
PACER USERS: Enter your PACER login and password and click on the "Reports" option on the bluemenu bar. Click on the "Written Opinions" report to search for opinions or to view case specific opinions filed after April 16, 2005. You will NOT be charged for running this report or viewing, printing or saving opinions listed on this report. To avoid billing charges, ALWAYS use the "Written Opinions" report to view, print or save court opinions.
Case Name: Gus Skip Daleure, Jr., et al. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al.
Abstract: Telecommunication services are not commodities for purposes of Section 2(a) of the Robinson Patman Act, nor are they goods, wares or merchandise for purposes of Section 2(c) of the Robinson Patman Act.
Case Name: Gus Skip Daleure, Jr., et al. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al.
Abstract: The Local Government AntiTrust Act immunizes local governments against damages, interest, costs and attorney's fees otherwise recoverable under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1. See 15 U.S.C. Section 35. The Act does not, however, bar declaratory or injunctive relief. A restraint of trade on inmate telephone services was not a foreseeable result of the state's broad grant of authority for counties to run local jails. The Court based this conclusion on several factors. First, the state's grant of authority makes no mention of telephone services. Second, most aspects of jails are state funded, making a suppression of private competition less foreseeable. Third, the nature of the service does not require a restraint of trade. Inmates could be provided the opportunity to make collect calls without restricting competition. Finally, the purpose of the statute is not furthered by the restraint of trade. The counties' contracts appear to be awarded to the telephone service willing to pay the largest commission rather than to the least expensive or best service provider. States conferred authority on counties to run safe, orderly jails, not to make a profit.
Case Name: Ivan Wells v. Huish Detergents, Inc.
Abstract: Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. This Court granted that motion.Defendant employed Plaintiff. While at work, Plaintiff slipped and fell injuring his knee. Approximately one month later, management allegedly discovered that Plaintiff was self-dealing in violation of company policy. Defendant fired Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that he had permission from a company supervisor to self-deal and that he was actually fired for his disability. He received knee surgery approximately two weeks after his termination. Plaintiff brings suit alleging breach of express and implied contract, breach of a covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, retaliatory termination, violation of the Kentucky Equal Opportunities Act (KEOA), and violation of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act (KCRA). Defendants moved for summary judgment and this Court granted that motion. Plaintiff could be fired for self-dealing despite permission from a company supervisor. Defendant and plaintiff had an employment contract that contained explicit language that Plaintiff was an at-will employee and that no conduct by any employee short of a written, signed statement by the company president could alter his at-will status. The supervisor's permission falls short of this statement and does not alter the at-will status. As such, his first two actions fail. His last two actions fail as Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a disability under KEOA or KCRA.
Case Name: Ivan Wells v. Huish Detergents, Inc.
Abstract: Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. This Court granted that motion.Defendant employed Plaintiff. While at work, Plaintiff slipped and fell injuring his knee. Approximately one month later, management allegedly discovered that Plaintiff was self-dealing in violation of company policy. Defendant fired Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that he had permission from a company supervisor to self-deal and that he was actually fired for his disability. He received knee surgery approximately two weeks after his termination. Plaintiff brings suit alleging breach of express and implied contract, breach of a covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, retaliatory termination, violation of the Kentucky Equal Opportunities Act (KEOA), and violation of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act (KCRA). Defendants moved for summary judgment and this Court granted that motion. Plaintiff could be fired for self-dealing despite permission from a company supervisor. Defendant and plaintiff had an employment contract that contained explicit language that Plaintiff was an at-will employee and that no conduct by any employee short of a written, signed statement by the company president could alter his at-will status. The supervisor's permission falls short of this statement and does not alter the at-will status. As such, his first two actions fail. His last two actions fail as Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a disability under KEOA or KCRA.
Case Name: Papa John's International v. Pizza Hut, Inc.
Abstract: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Transfer is DENIED. Plaintiff's claims were not compulsory counterclaims in prior action filed by Defendant against Plaintiff. Transfer is also inappropriate.
Case Name: Kinergy Corporation v. Conveyor Dynamics Corporation
Abstract: The defendants, Conveyor Dynamics Corporation and Didion Manufacturing Company filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over each of them. In this action, Kinergy Corporation has alleged that the defendants conspired to misappropriate its trade secrets and proprietary information, that they engaged in unfair trade practices, violated federal antitrust laws, and committed conversion. Held: This court does not have personal jurisdiction over the defendants; the motions to dismiss granted. Jurisdiction over Didion was premised upon its business contacts with Kinergy in Kentucky over a number of years. Kinergy failed to establish that the alleged conspiracy arose from the business transactions - the purchase of a number of machines from Kinergy in previous years. Conveyor Dynamics has had no contacts with Kentucky since its formation. Kinergy sought to establish jurisdiction over Conveyor Dynamics by imputing the contacts of Didion, its alleged coconspirator, to Conveyor Dynamics. Since the contacts of Didion were found to be insufficient under the due process standard, they were insufficient to satisfy the requirement with respect to Conveyor Dynamics. Further, the complaint does not allege that wrongful acts of the coconspirators occurred in Kentucky. The mere formation of a conspiratorial scheme is insufficient to amount to a tort. The only act alleged in furtherance of the conspiracy, the formation of Conveyor Dynamics, occurred in Missouri.
Case Name: Iroquois Manor, et al. v. Walgreen Company
Abstract: The plaintiffs moved for judgment on the pleadings claiming the defendant breached its commercial lease when it closed its doors, moved across the street, and refused to allow the plaintiffs to lease to another party. The defendant continued to pay the monthly base rent for the remainder of the lease, but refused to pay the additional percentage rent amount. The defendant argued that, because it no longer occupied the premises, the plaintiffs were not entitled to a percentage of its cash sales. The plaintiffs argued that the Court should imply a covenant of continuous operation into the lease. Because the parties actively negotiated the lease throughout their relationship and did not include such a clause, this Court declines to rewrite it by implying a covenant of continuous operation. The plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.
Case Name: United States v. Wilfredo Jambu
Abstract: Defendant's Motion to Suppress is GRANTED, as his arrest was not supported by probable cause. The evidence seized from his apartment and vehicle are fruits of the poisonous tree.
Case Name: Susan Mills v. American Underground Structures, Inc.
Abstract: Mills made motion to set aside order of the Magistrate Judge compelling disclosure of her attorney's total hours expended and her hourly rate in this employment discrimination case. American Underground requested this information as part of its pretrial discovery for the purpose of settlement negotiations. Held: The Magistrate Judge's order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Mills' motion is denied.
Case Name: Res-Care, Inc. v. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc.
Abstract: Res-Care alleged breach of contract by Omega because Omega refused to renegotiate lease terms under lease provision providing for renegotiation upon a bona fide determination by Res-Care that amendments to Indiana Medicaid program adversely affected the economic feasibility of the lease. Held: Under renegotiation provision, Res-Care is not guaranteed an automatic rent reduction upon making the determination. Assuming Omega breached the provision, Res-Care is only entitled to injunctive relief to force Omega to renegotiate. A claim for renegotiation of the lease is now moot, however, because Res-Care exercised its option under the lease to purchase the properties. Omega's motion for summary judgment is granted.