You are here


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: William Fultz v. Richard Whittaker, et al.

Abstract: Plaintiff sued Defendant police officers under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 after his neck was broken when Defendant arrested him. Defendants moved for summary judgment claiming qualified immunity. The Court grants qualified immunity on Plaintiff's claims that Defendants violated his constitutional rights by falsely arresting him, by using pepper spray, and by acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs. At the present stage of discovery, the Court finds material facts are in dispute as to whether Defendants deliberately broke Plaintiff's neck and whether Defendants demonstrated deliberate indifference to Plaintiff by using an unreasonably dangerous neck hold. On these last claims Defendants' motion for qualified immunity is denied.



Case Name: Hossain Saneii and Lynn Saneii v. William T. Robards and Laura Robards

Abstract: Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint arising out of a residential real estate contract claiming an arbitration clause contained within the contract requires the parties to arbitrate any and all disputes. Plaintiffs claim the arbitration clause is not enforceable because their claim of fraud in the inducement or the entire contract renders the arbitration clause unenforceable. The Court held that under both the Federal Arbitration Act and Kentucky law, where a plaintiff claims fraud in the inducement of a contract containing an arbitration agreement which covers claims fo fraud, and where the allegation of fraud is to the contract generally and not the arbitration clause itself, the issue is for an arbitrator to decide. This result is clear under the FAA but, because the record is incomplete as to whether this contract implicates interstate commerce, this decision ultimately rests on interpreting Kentucky's arbitration act, KRS 417.050, consistent with the FAA and the majority of states that have adopted the Uniform Arbitration Act.



Senior District Judge Charles R. Simpson III

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

Abstract: The plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the order entered by this court on December 21st, 2000 will be denied. The plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the order was based on a clear error of law, that newly discovered evidence supports his position, that there has been an intervening change in controlling law regarding the doctrine of absolute immunity, or that reconsideration is necessary to prevent manifest injustice.

Case Name: Michael Hasken, et al. v. The City of Louisville

Abstract: The factual record, as it now exists, provides insufficient information on which to base a finding that the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) prerequisites for class certification have been met. Therefore, the plaintiffs' motion for class certification will be denied.

Case Name: George W. Reid v. Frankfort Publishing Co., L.L.C. d/b/a The State Journal, et al.

Abstract: Because the plaintiff has failed to adequately demonstrate the requisite diversity of citizenship between the parties, he is ordered to show cause why his Complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (h) (3).

Case Name: Francisco Portuondo-Gonzales v. United States of America

Abstract: This Section 2255 petition, to the extent it is based on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), is dismissed because the new rule of criminal procedure announced in Apprendi may not be retroactively applied. The petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is also dismissed because it is time barred, and the doctrine of equitable tolling, assuming it may be applicable, would not justify a different conclusion.

Case Name: Res-Care, Inc. v. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc.

Abstract: Plaintiff filed amended complaint which added three causes of action sounding in tort. Defendant moved for dismissal of these added claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Court ruled that, under Indiana and Kentucky law, claims for misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment were either subsumed by the contract or did not arise under the given circumstances. Motion granted.

Case Name: Mary Elizabeth Leary, et al v. Stephen W. Daeschner

Abstract: Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Count VIII of the amended complaint seeking compensatory and punitive damages for claims asserted in County V through VII which were pr eviously dismissed; denying plaintiffs' motion to file a second amended complaint; and dismissing action with prejudice.

Case Name: George W. Reid v. Frankfort Publishing Co., L.L.C. d/b/a The State Journal, et al.

Abstract: The plaintiff has failed to adequately demonstrate the diversity of the parties. It is unrefuted that the principal place of business of the defendant, Frankfort Publishing, is in Kentucky and that the plaintiff is also a citizen of Kentucky. Therefore, the plaintiff's Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Abstract: Given the large scale of Ford's E-Coat System demolition and replacement, the infrequency with which Ford's production facilities experience E-Coat System revision or replacement, the plain meaning of "regular" and "recurring," and the interpretation given by courts to KRS Section 342.610, we cannot say that as a matter of law, Ford acted as a contractor in hiring TKS. Therefore, Ford's motion for summary judgment will be denied.