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: Robert Jones v. Ernest M. Smith, et al.

Abstract: The three motions of the plaintiff to amend his complaint are denied. The court has previously denied a similar motion filed by the plaintiff due to the deficiency of his attempt to amend his complaint. The plaintiff's present attempts are similarly deficient and incomprehensible.

Case Name: Robert Jones v. Ernest M. Smith, et al.

Abstract: Pro se plaintiff brought suit alleging various civil rights deprivations. The defendants' motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's Section 1983 claim will be granted. Further, we will sua sponte dismiss the remainder of the plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Finally, the defendants' motion for a protective order will be denied as moot.

Case Name: James Bell, et al. v. The City of Louisville, et al.

Abstract: The defendants' motion to sever is denied. If at a later date, the record more clearly indicates that severance of the plaintiffs' claims is appropriate, the defendants may renew their motions at that time.

Case Name: James Bell, et al. v. The City of Louisville, et al.

Abstract: The plaintiffs brought suit against several defendants seeking redress for the shootings of their pet dogs. The defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted with regard to: (1) the plaintiffs' claims arising out of the shooting allegedly involving Officer Leachman; (2) the plaintiffs' claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities; (3) all claims brought by the plaintiffs against Col. Ricucci; (4) the plaintiffs' claims against Lt. Osoffsky, Lt. Col. Blaser, and Capt. Sherrard in their individual capacities; (5) the plaintiffs' claims against the LPD; (6) the plaintiffs' claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1985; (7) the plaintiffs' claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 to the extent they are based on alleged violations of the Fifth, the Eighth, and the Fourteenth Amendments; (8) the plaintiffs' prayer for equitable relief; and (9) the plaintiffs' prayer for punitive damages to the extent they are sought from the City of Louisville or its officers in their official capacities.

Case Name: Commonwealth Aluminum Corporation v. Stanley Metal Associates

Abstract: Defendant's motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction are denied.

Case Name: Rick Devine v. Jefferson County, Kentucky, et al.

Abstract: Defendants moved for summary judgment in section 1983 case. Defendants demonstrated that there was an absence of evidence supporting the notion that Plaintiff exercised his First Amendment rights or that his exercise of those rights was the cause of his termination. Plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to the contrary. Defendants motion is granted.

Case Name: Kinergy Corporation v. Conveyor Dynamics Corporation

Abstract: Motion of Kinergy Corporation to vacate order of dismissal. Held: Minimum contacts not established and alleged tortious injury not shown to have arisen from the doing or soliciting of business in the Commonwealth.

Case Name: Keith Ferrell v. City of Radcliff, Kentucky, et al.

Abstract: The plaintiff brought suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. However, these defendants are entitled to avail themselves of the defense of absolute immunity. Therefore, the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted.

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

Abstract: Defendants filed for summary judgment in section 1983 case. The Court found that there was no genuine dispute as to facts material to the Plaintiffs' claims and granted the motion.

Case Name: Eric Von Dean v. The City of Louisville, et al.

Abstract: The plaintiff filed his motion to reconsider in response to this court's order granting the defendants' motions for summary judgment. A supplementary review of the factual record supports our original conclusion that summary judgment in favor of the defendants on that part of the plaintiff's complaint which seeks recovery for alleged civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 is proper. Therefore, the plaintiff's motion to reconsider will be denied.

Pages