Opinions

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.

District Judge Jennifer B. Coffman

Case Name: Louisville Bedding Co. v. Perfect Fit Industries, Inc.

Abstract: The opinion accords preclusive effect to claim interpretations of patent from previous litigation against a different defendant, where the parties had settled. The court applied a four-element framework, and found that (1) the isssues of the previous and current litigation were identical; (2) the issues were actually litigated in the prior proceedings; (3) the previous claim interpretations was necessary to the final judgment; and (4) there had been a full and fair opportunity to litigate.

Case Name: Louisville Bedding v. Perfect Fit Industries

Abstract:

Senior District Judge Charles R. Simpson III

Case Name: Gary N. Deusner v. Firstar Corporation and Firstar Bank, National Association

Abstract: Plaintiff filed suit claiming that Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. section 1667b(b) of the Consumer Leasing Act by charging him an unreasonable penalty for making a late monthly payment under the terms of his lease. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court found that 1667b(b) did not regulate the reasonableness of penalties for late payments. Motion granted.

Case Name: Commonwealth Aluminum Corp. v. Stanley Metal Associates

Abstract: Defendant moved for summary judgment on grounds that alleged contract did not satisfy the statute of frauds. Court held that letter from representative of Defendant was admissible and evidenced a contract for sale of goods. Motion denied.

Case Name: Roger Herzig, M.D. v. Oncology/Hermatology, Inc.

Abstract: Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on eight of the Defendant's counterclaims. The Court agreed that a breach of contract cannot create a cause of action in tort for conversion and that the Defendant had not adequately demonstrate its need for the equitable remedy of an accounting. Therefore, Counts IV and IX of the Defendant's counterclaim were dismissed. The rest of the motion is denied.

Case Name: Gary N. Deusner v. Firstar Corporation and Firstar Bank, National Association

Abstract: Plaintiff filed motion to reconsider order dismissing complaint. Motion was filed untimely and was not well taken. Motion denied.

Case Name: Arthur Wayne Lynch v. Lear Seating Corp., et al.

Abstract: The Plaintiff moved the Court to file a second amended complaint. The Court found that it would be not be equitable to allow the inclusion of a new Defendant at this stage in the proceedings. Therefore,the Court denied the motion to the extent that the amended complaint named a new Defenant and granted it in all other respects.

Case Name: Michael Ford, et al. v. Ford Motor Company

Abstract: The Defendant filed motion to reconsider Court's order denying its previous motion for summary judgment. Motion denied.

Case Name: Roger Herzig, M.D. v. Oncology/Hermatology, Inc.

Abstract: Plaintiff moved Court to alter or amend previous order finding that Plaintiff's status as a shareholder of the Defendant ended at the time his employment terminated. Motion granted.

Senior District Judge John G. Heyburn II

Case Name: United States of America v. Donald M. Heavrin

Abstract: Defendant moved for attorney's fees and costs under the Hyde Amendment, Pub. L. No. 105-119, 11 Stat. 2440, 2519 (1997), after the Court dismissed all criminal charges brought against him. The Hyde Amendment's requirement that a defendant state his net worth does not exceed $2,000,000 is not jurisdictional and may be cured after the thirty day limit to file a motion. For purposes of the Hyde Amendment, a frivolous charge is either one without some legal precedent for the government's position or, if legally sound, a charge brought without a reasonable expectation of evidence at trial to support this position. Here, Count I is not frivolous but Counts II, VII, and IX, are frivolous.

 

 

Pages