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.

Senior District Judge Charles R. Simpson III

Case Name: United States v. Callan

Abstract: Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal. Government introduced sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction, including evidence of motive and intent. Motion denied.

Case Name: United States v. Callan

Abstract: Defendant renewed motion to contact jurors to inquire whether they had extraneous prejudicial information. Although information, if possessed by juror and conveyed to rest of the jury, may have been extraneous, it was not prejudicial because there was no factual issue at trial regarding the information. Motion denied.

Case Name: United States v. Callan

Abstract: Defendant brought motion for new trial based upon: (1) juror misconduct; (2) court's denial of defendant's motion to contact jurors; (3) verdict contrary to weight of evidence; (4) prosecutorial misconduct;(5)character evidence improperly admitted ; and (6) witness improperly testified at trial. Motion denied.

Case Name: Federal Election Commission v. Freedom's Heritage Forum, et al

Abstract: The motion to dismiss made by the Defendants, Freedom's Heritage Forum and Dr. Frank Simon, is granted in part and denied in part. Counts I and II of the Amended Complaint are dismissed, as the FEC has not plead sufficient allegations of coordination, under the regulations and the statues, between the Hardy campaign and the defendants in order to defeat the motion to dismiss. Count VII of the Amended Complaint is dismissed as to Exhibits 1, 3 and 4, as they do not contain any express advocacy of the defeat or election of a candidate, and thus do not fall under the purview of the statute.

Case Name: Ruth Ann Wuerth Trimbur v. Kentucky Lottery Corp., et al.

Abstract: Plaintiff sued Kentucky Lottery Corporation, retailer and police in connection with wrongful arrest for theft of lottery tickets. Police moved for summary judgment on the claims arising under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, unlawful search and seizure, and the state law claims of assault and battery, and negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress. Facts and inferences therefrom supported a finding of probable cause, and events as pled by Plaintiff did not support claims for emotional distress. Plaintiff did not assert further discovery would produce disputed material facts. Motion for summary judgment sustained.

Case Name: Mary Ann Tobin v. Jennifer Troutman, et al.

Abstract: Plaintiff brought tax refund claim and Bivens action based on violations of Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and 26 U.S.C. Section 7431. Defendants moved to dismiss. Court held although plaintiff originally filed claim prior to exhausting administrative remedies, her claim had since matured and amended complaint cured jurisdictional flaws. Bivens action alleging Fifth Amendment abuses was preempted by remedial provisions of tax code. Fourth Amendment allegations were not so preempted. Plaintiff failed to state a claim under 26 U.S.C. Section 7431 where records wrongfully inspected were in her possession and not in possession of IRS.

Case Name: Sandra Hampton, Parent and Next Friend of Ollie Hampton, et al. v. Jefferson County Board of Educati

Abstract: The Court concluded that the Board enacted the racial composition guidelines challenged by Plaintiffs as part of its ongoing efforts to comply with a continuing desegregation decree. After examining the history of desegregation litigation in Jefferson County, this Court concluded that no judge ever completely dissolved the desegregation decree put in place in 1975. While the Board had adopted the obligations imposed by this decree as part of its own policy, the Court could not ignore the decree's continuing effect. The consequence of this decision is that Plaintiff must obtain the termination of the continuing decree before they can attack the Board's racial balance policies. The Court explained that, if Plaintiffs wished to seek the dissolution of the decree, they would need to follow the process announced by the Supreme Court in Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991). The Dowell Court stated that, to dissolve a continuing desegregation decree, the moving party would need to prove the board's continuing good faith and the elimination of any vestiges of past segregation to the extent practicable. The Court took no action other than allowing Plaintiffs, or other parties, to move for the termination of the decree.

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

Abstract: Plaintiffs sued Danek Medical claiming damages arising from Defendant's Texas Scottish Rite Hospital spinal system on theories of negligence per se, product liability, and breach of warranty. After the Court dismissed these claims on Defendant's motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend the complaint to include claims based on Defendant's alleged fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration during its approval process for the TSRH system. Discerning no nexus between Plaintiffs and Defendant's statements to the FDA, and finding that Plaintiffs failed to allege the essential element of reliance upon the alleged misrepresentations, the Court held that the proposed amendment failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, rendering it futile. Motion for leave to amend denied; case dismissed absent any remaining claims.

Case Name: Maryland Casualty Insurance Company v. Best Western Gold Vault Inn, Inc., et al.

Abstract: After suffering a violent assault while working at Gold Vault Inn, a motel employee brought suit in a Kentucky state court against the Inn and owners of the land on which it sits. When the Inn and landowners requested that Maryland Casualty defend and indemnify them in that suit, Maryland Casualty sought a declaratory judgment that it owed them no such duties under a commercial liability insurance contract. On the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court held that a provision excluding coverage for on-duty employees prevented the Inn from seeking indemnity and defense from Maryland Casualty. The Court also held that an insurance clause in the lease between the Inn and the landowners was not an agreement to indemnify the landowners for suits alleging their own negligence. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment granted; Defendants' cross-motion denied.

Case Name: Gus Skip Daleure, Jr., et al. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al.

Abstract: The Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Commonwealth of Kentucky Department of Corrections enjoy sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment immunity, unless they consent to suit. There is no commercial activity exception to the Eleventh Amendment, nor is there an exception to allow suit for money which the state never should have received.