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: Harrod v. Philip Morris Inc. and Andy Frain Services

Abstract: Plaintiff brought defamation action as a result of incident reports prepared by security personnel employed by Andy Frain Services. Because Andy Frain was an independent contractor, Philip Morris cannot be held liable for its torts. Summary judgment granted in favor of Philip Morris.

Case Name: David Lynn Meador, et al v. Luther Luckett

Abstract: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, as Plaintiff's claims of overcrowding do not rise to the level of denial of minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.

Case Name: David Lynn Meador, et al v. Luther Luckett

Abstract: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, as Plaintiff's claims of overcrowding do not rise to the level of denial of minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.

Case Name: Darrell Rodgers v. Walt Chapleau

Abstract: Motion to reconsider opinion and order dismissing claims against corrections officer Terry Butrum. Previous opinion amended to reflect that it was uncontroverted that Butrum was the guard on the watch in the Segregation Unit on the night in question. The court declined to vacate the order dismissing the claims against Butrum, on the ground that Rodgers had not established that Butrum had acted with deliberate indifference to a strong liklihood that Rodgers would attempt suicide.

Case Name: Fund for the Animanls v. Governor Paul Patton

Abstract: Plaintiffs brought constitutional challenges to Kentucky's procedure for selecting nominees from which Governor appoints members to Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission. Nominees are selected by vote of 'sportsmen.' 'Sportsman' was formerly defined as an individual licensed to hunt or fish in Kentucky for two years but has been amended to include individuals with boating licenses. Due to amendment, plaintiff's claim that process is unconstitutional because it requires them to purchase license for hunting and fishing activities they morally oppose is now moot. Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted.

Case Name: United States of America v. Luis Salgado, et al

Abstract: Defendants' Motions for New Trial and Judgment of Acquittal are DENIED. Sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions existed, hearsay evidence was properly admitted, and the allegation of juror misconduct is not supported by the record.

Case Name: Harrod v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al.

Abstract: Plaintiff brought motion to vacate orders granting summary judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff had brought a claim against defendants alleging defamation per se based upon information contained in incident reports. This court maintains that reports were not defamatory on their face and that defendant Philip Morris cannot be held liable for the torts of its independent contractor. Denied.

Senior District Judge John G. Heyburn II

Case Name: Kentucky Laborers District Council Health and Welfare Trust Fund, et al. v. Hill and Knowlton, Inc.,

Abstract: Defendants sought interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) of denial of motions to dismiss. Defendants wanted court to certify questions regarding remoteness of plaintiffs' alleged injuries and whether injuries alleged were business or property injuries. Defendants failed to convince court that controlling issues of law were really in dispute. Motion rested on Defendants' dissatisfaction of Court's application of remoteness test to the facts alleged, not with legal standard applied. Motion to certify issues for interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) denied.

Case Name: Nichelle Rodgers v. Apple South, Inc.

Abstract: Plaintiff asserted claims for race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, Kentucky Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. Defendant moved to dismiss Section 1981 claim as time barred, alleging Kentucky's one year, personal injury limitations period governed. Plaintiff countered that 28 U.S.C. Section 1658 governed, which provides four year limitations period for actions arising under federal laws enacted after 1990 without internal limitations period. Court ruled that amendments to Section 1981 enacted in 1991 were covered by Section 1658 limitations period. Motion to dismiss denied.

Case Name: James Clark and Bonnie E. Clark v. Danek Medical, Inc.

Abstract: The Court granted summary judgment for Danek Medical in a product liability suit over a spinal implant. Plaintiffs introduced no evidence of a design defect. Plaintiffs almost presented a viable case of failure to warn based on Danek's allegedly inadequate notice of the FDA status of the device. The Court rejected Danek's attempt to assert the learned intermediary defense. Problematically, Plaintiffs failed to offer enough evidence of causation on the question of whether either Mr. Clark or his physician would have made a different decision if Danek had given a proper warning. The Court delayed dismissing the suit because it granted the Plaintiffs the opportunity to move to amend in order to add a claim of fraud on the FDA.

Pages