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.

Senior District Judge Charles R. Simpson III

Case Name: Troy Davis, et al. v. Breckinridge County, et al.

Abstract: The Plaintiff moved the Court to reconsider its order granting summary judgment to the Defendants. The Court found that, even with the new evidence presented by the Plaintiff, there was not a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to fire safety.

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: 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.

Senior District Judge John G. Heyburn II

Case Name: Wendy Hobbs Edwards v. Ford Motor Company, et al.

Abstract: Plaintiff filed suit against former employer alleging she was terminated in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act. Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted because Plaintiff's claim is time-barred under FMLA's two-year statute of limitations. Plaintiff also brought claims against her union for: first, breach of its duty of fair representation under Section 301 of Labor Management Relations Act; and second, for violations of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act and Kentucky Equal Opportunities Act. Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted as to the first claim because Plaintiff failed to exhaust requisite intraunion appeals procedures, and granted on the second claim because Plaintiff failed to introduce sufficient evidence that the union's proffered reason for not pursuing her claim to arbitration was a mere pretext or subterfuge for discriminatory animus.

 

 

Case Name: Keith B. Baranski, et al. v. Fifteen Unknown Agents of ATF, et al.

Abstract: Plaintiffs filed suit alleging Defendants unlawfully searched a warehouse and seized a large number of firearms. Plaintiffs, individual and corporate entities affected by the search and seizure, assert multiple causes of action against a number of Defendants, including named and unnamed federal agents, and the United States. The Court considered the following motions filed by Defendants: first, a proposed substitution of parties; second, motions to dismiss; and third, a motion to stay. Defendant United States' motion to substitute itself as the sole party defendant to Plaintiffs' state law tort claims was granted pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, the exclusive remedy for the tortious acts of federal government employees acting within the scope of their employment. Second, Defendant United States' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' motion to unseal the affidavit upon which the challenged search warrant was based was denied because the government failed to demonstrate that Plaintiffs' motion must first be brought before the magistrate that issued the initial sealing order. Defendant United States' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim for the return of their property was granted on the grounds that, one, a claimant may not proceed under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e) once the government has initiated a civil forfeiture action, and two, a civil forfeiture action is not subject to a Fifth Amendment takings claim. Defendant United States' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' state law tort claims was granted due to Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust all available administrative remedies. Finally, Defendant federal agents' motion to stay Plaintiffs' Fourth and Fifth Amendment Bivens claims was granted pending the completion of the ongoing criminal investigation into Plaintiffs' activities.

 

 

District Judge Jennifer B. Coffman

Case Name: James Slaughter v. Phil Parker

Abstract: Order of the District Court that stays the enforcement of its prior order granting partial habeas corpus relief to a death sentenced Kentucky prisoner pending the conclusion of all appeals in the case.

Case Name: James Earl Slaughter v. Phillip Parker, Warden

Abstract: The court considered the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition and determined that ineffective assistance of counsel, in the form of counsel's failure to investigate and prepare for the penalty phase of the trial and the failure to obtain an independent expert report, entitled the petitioner to habeas relief in the form of a new penalty phase. The court rejected the petitioner's claims regarding pre-trial rulings, jury selection and questioning, the nature and adequacy of testimony at trial, prosecutorial misconduct, jury instructions, death penalty challenges, double jeopardy, juror questioning, report of the trial judge, victim impact statement, and ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilt phase of the trial.

Case Name: Norma Jean Jefferson v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., et al.

Abstract: In this case, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's federal due process (property and liberty) and retaliation claims because the plaintiff failed to plead and/or prove that the post-deprivation remedies available to her under state law were inadequate and because the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence that the defendants cancelled her arbitration hearing to punish her for filing an action in this court. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state law claims.

Case Name: Norma Jean Jefferson v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., et al.

Abstract: In this matter the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend. This case involved federal due process and retaliation claims and state defamation, abuse of teacher, and tortious interference claims. The plaintiff, an elementary school teacher for over twenty years, claimed that she had been slandered, abused, suspended without pay for five days, and coerced into retirement when she was accused of mistreating her students by her former teaching assistant, various school officials, and the Louisville media. The court had entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants on her federal claims because, among other things, she did not plead or prove that her state remedies--including a state law breach of contract action in state court--were inadequate to redress her alleged due process deprivations and no evidence showed that the defendants delayed or canceled her arbitration hearing with the intent to punish her for filing suit in this court. This order affirms that substantive decision. To the extent, however, the court's entry of summary judgment dismissed without prejudice her state claims, the court, to save the plaintiff the expense of re-filing her state claims in state court, vacated itself and remanded her state claims to Jefferson Circuit Court.

Case Name: Mary Ann Tobin v. Jennifer Troutman and United States of America

 

Abstract: In June, 1999, the Court denied in part and sustained in part Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiff's claims. One of the government's unsuccessful motions asserted that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's tax refund claim because she had failed to exhaust requisite administrative procedures. The Court subsequently granted the government leave to renew the motion to dismiss on this ground. Upon reconsideration, the government's motion to dismiss is denied. Plaintiff did prematurely commence her suit outside of the time period specified by 26 U.S.C. Sections 6532(a) and 7422(a). However, by filing a supplemental complaint alleging agency denial of her administrative claim, Plaintiff sufficiently cured this jurisdictional defect.
 

Pages