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: Kathy Corum, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank of Kentucky, Inc., et al

Abstract: Plaintiffs brought this action against Fifth Third Bank of Kentucky, Inc., and Fifth Third Bancorp (collectively “Fifth Third”) alleging that the late fees they imposed on their automobile leases are unreasonable under the Consumer Leasing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1667(b)b. Plaintiffs re-asserted their Motion for Class Certification. Fifth Third opposed class certification because mere notice of it could create significant harm to its business interests. The Court and the parties considered alternatives to immediate certification and notice, including the use of the “test case” approach. A test case could determine if Fifth Third is liable to the named Plaintiff for its alleged violations of the Consumer Leasing Act, i.e. whether the late fee imposed on her automobile lease was reasonable under 15 U.S.C. § 1667b(b). However, before deciding on the use of the “test case,” the Court needed further consultation with the parties, concerning the extent to which the results are binding and concerning the use of subclasses. Assuming everyone agrees to the test case as set out above, the Court would reserve certification of the class and defer notice to that tentatively defined class until the issue of liability is tried. The Court would intend to accept the class definition propounded by Plaintiffs, but reserves the right, after the issue of liability has been tried for the named Plaintiff, to alter the definition appropriately. Depending on the outcome of the test case, the Court may alter the class definition, change its holding on certification, or the parties may reconsider the virtues of going forward with such an action.

Case Name: CONWOOD COMPANY, L.P., et al. v. United States Tobacco Co., et al.

Abstract: The Defendants filed a Motion to Authorize a Supersedeas Bond and Other Conditions for Security of the Judgment and Proposed Order. The Defendants requested authorization to forgo the bonding of the entire judgment amount pending the Court's ruling on the Defendants' post-trial motions and the outcome of future appeals by the Defendants. The Defendants asked the Court to waive the bond altogether or to allow the posting of a reduced supersedeas bond in the amount of $350 million. Typically, Courts require a full bonding to protect the financial interests of plaintiffs. Courts have fashioned alternatives to the posting of a full supersedeas bond in several circumstances including those where a party has objectively demonstrated an ability to easily respond to the money judgment and presented an alternative financially secure plan to maintain that same degree of solvency during the period of an appeal; that other means are available to fully protect the judgment creditor and that posting a full bond would impose an undue financial burden on the debtor; or that the danger other creditors might suffer unnecessarily if the court required the debtor to post a full bond. After careful deliberation, the Court ordered a bond of $500 million with the additional safeguards proposed by the Defendantsl. This provides the Plaintiffs a guaranteed $500 million and will enact safety measures that will provide great safety for the balance of the judgment.