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: Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Anson Stamping, Inc. et al.
Abstract: Defendant moved the Court to certify issue for interlocutory appeal. Court held that substantial grounds for difference of opinion did not exist and that interlocutory appeal would not materially advance the ultimate resolution of the case. Motion denied.
Case Name: Rick Devine v. Jefferson County, Kentucky, et al.
Abstract: Plaintiff moved the Court to reconsider its order granting summary judgment to the Defendants. Court found that it had considered all of the evidence and arguments advanced by the Plaintiff in the original motions. Motion denied.
Case Name: Najum Azmat, M.D., v. Donna E. Shalla, Secretary
Abstract: Both parties made motions for summary judgment. Court found that the decision made by Defendant was in accordance with the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Health Care Quality Improvement Act. The motion of the Plaintiff was denied. The motion of the Defendant was granted.
Case Name: Kinergy Corporation v. Conveyor Dynamics Corporation
Abstract: Motion by Kinergy Corporation to amend the court's order of dismissal and transfer case to the Eastern District of Missouri. Held: Motion granted. In its discretion, the court determined that the interests of justice were served by transfer of the action where it was likely that a claim would be time barred in the court in which the action would be refiled. The court's decision to transfer did not affect the court's earlier determination that personal jurisdiction was lacking over the defendants. The court merely altered the disposition of the matter.
Case Name: Michael Hasken, et al. v. The City of Louisville
Abstract: Plaintiffs brought suit alleging breach of contract, the violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the violation of Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sections 337.010-.550. We find that there exist genuine issues of material fact as to whether the F.L.S.A. statute of limitations was equitably tolled. Additionally, because a Kentucky circuit court would be unable to hear the plaintiffs' claim which arises under KRS Section 337, we decline to consider it. Finally, because the plaintiffs' breach of contract claim is separate and distinct from any statutory claim also alleged by the plaintiffs, we find that the plaintiffs may properly bring suit against the city for breach of contract. Count III of the plaintiffs' Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. The defendant's motion as to Counts I and II will be denied.
Case Name: Mary Elizabeth Leary v. Stephen Daeschner
Abstract: Motion of Daeschner for summary judgment on claims of false imprisonment, interference with advantageous relationship, interference with contract rights, and outrageous conduct. Held: Summary judgment granted. The undisputed facts did not establish the elements of these claims.
Case Name: J. Barrett Hyman, M.D. v. The City of Louisville, et al.
Abstract: The plaintiff's affidavit, which merely reflects the current state of his business affairs, may supplement the record in this case without prejudice or surprise to the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff's motion to supplement the record with his affidavit will be granted.
Case Name: J. Barrett Hyman, M.D. v. The City of Louisville, et al.
Abstract: The plaintiff brought suit challenging amendments to antidiscrimination ordinances enacted by Louisville and Jefferson County which prohibit discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity in the context of employment. Confronted with cross-motions for summary judgment filed by all parties, we find that: (1) the plaintiff has standing to bring his claims; (2) the plaintiff's claims are ripe; (3) the challenged ordinances do not burden any of the plaintiff's rights which are protected by either the United States Constitution or the Kentucky Constitution; and (4) the ordinances are not inconsistent with any statutes of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Finding that neither ordinance offends either federal or state law, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment will be denied, and the defendants' motions for summary judgment will be granted.
Case Name: Flynn Investment Partnership, Ltd. v. Genesis Plastics and Engineering, LLC
Abstract: Defendant moved the Court to alter, amend, or vacate this Court's order granting summary judgment to plaintiff over ownership interests in an Indiana limited liability company. The Court based its prior order on a finding that the other members of the company waived their right of first refusal on the transfer of shares to the Plaintiff. The Court reconsidered and reaffirmed its finding of waiver, but clarified the order to reflect that the waiver of the right of first refusal was not sufficient to elevate Plaintiff's status to that of a member of the company, entitled to participate in the management of the company. Plaintiff is an owner, but not a member, of the company.
Case Name: Stephanie Grego v. Meijer, Inc.
Abstract: Defendant moved for a 12(b)(6) dismissal of Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff sued under a variety of theories, including sex discrimination, outrage, wrongful imprisonment, and negligent supervision, for events arising out of her brief employment with Defendant. Defendant argued that the statutory election of remedies provisions barred Plaintiff's sex discrimination claims, that the statute of limitations barred her wrongful imprisonment and negligent supervision claims, and that she did not state a cause of action for outrage. The Court held that the election of remedies provisions of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act only bars judicial redress when an administrative complaint is pending or has progressed to a final determination. As such, Plaintiff could proceed with her sex discrimination claim. The Court held the statute of limitations had run for the wrongful imprisonment claim, but no the negligent supervision claim since it derived, in this case, from the underlying tort of outrage which as a five year limitations period under Kentucky law. Finally, the Court held at the deferential posture of this 12(b)(6) motion that the Plaintiff had alleged facts sufficient to support a claim of outrage.
