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: Iroquois Manor, et al. v. Walgreen Co.

Abstract: Walgreen made motion to alter or amend language in this Court's prior opinion in this matter. Held: The word not shall be stricken from a sentence to reflect the fact that Walgreen does, in fact, dispute the alleged breach of its obligation under the lease with Iroquois Manor to pay common area maintenance charges. Iroquois Manor's claim for breach of this duty under the lease was not dismissed in the prior ruling and remains to be litigated. Motion to alter or amend is granted.

Case Name: Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Anson Stamping Company, Inc., et al.

Abstract: The defendant moved for reconsideration of a grant of partial summary judgment to the plaintiff. The defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing that there has been an intervening change in controlling law or that there is clear error or manifest injustice. Motion denied.


Abstract: Plaintiff brought suit alleging that he was mistakenly arrested and detained. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted based on plaintiff's inability to allege facts that would warrant a finding that his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. Plaintiff's federal law claims are dismissed, and the matter is remanded to Jefferson Circuit Court for consideration of his state law claims.


Abstract: Plaintiff brought suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging civil rights violations arising out of his arrest and detention. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted based on plaintiff's inability to show a Fourth Amendment violation. Plaintiff's state law claims are remanded to Jefferson Circuit Court for further proceedings.

Case Name: Donna M. Catlett v. Jefferson County Corrections Department, et al.

Abstract: Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is denied. As required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts upon which a jury could reasonably find: (a) that the plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability; (b) that the defendant(s) excluded her from participation in, or denied her the benefits of, services, programs, or activities, or otherwise subjected her to discrimination; (c) that each defendant is a public entity; (d) and that she was discriminated against by reason of her disability.

Case Name: Conwood Company v. United States Tobacco Company

Abstract: Antitrust, Sherman Act § 2 claims of monopolization and attempted monopolization. After a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff, the Court denied Defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or a reduced damages award.

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

Abstract: Insurance carrier sought summary judgment declaring that it had no duty to defend or indemnify an additional insured based on an injury to an independent contractor's employee. The Court construed the policy and held that it covered the additional insured and that the workers compensation exclusion did not bar coverage.



Case Name: Harry P. Pilling and Christine M. Pilling v. Reliance Insurance Company and The Traveleres Indemnity

Abstract: In the second review of an insurance dispute arising out of an accident with a truck covered by two separate policies from separate defendants, the Court applied Ohio agency law to find that the higher level of uninsured motorists ocverage was not validly rejected. The Court then analyzed the policy provisions to determine the total limit of uninsured motorists coverage and the priority between the two policies. The Court held that under Ohio law at the inception of the policy, uninsured motorists coverage could not be limited to damages for bodily injury only and that, under Ohio case law, that the insureds had not consented to the arbitration provisions in the insurance contract and the arbitration provisions were therefore unenforceable.



Case Name: Flynn Investment Partnership, Ltd. v. Genesis Plastics and Engineering, LLC

Abstract: A transferee of membership interest in an Indiana Limited Liability Corporation sought a declaratory judgment recognizing the transfer of ownership. The original members of the LLC had rights of first refusal and rights to repurchase shares upon the death of any member in the LLC's operating agreement that they did not invoke when one member transferred ownership to an investment partnership. The transferor subsequently passed away and the remaining members sought to invoke the purchase-upon-death provisions. The Court found that Indiana law and nonwaiver provisions in the agreement did not prevent the members from waiving their right of first refusal, and therefore that the transfer was valid. Because the transfer was valid, the purchase upon death provisions were not triggered upon the original member's death.



Case Name: Sherrie Sprowls v. Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc. and William Rotert

Abstract: Defendants removed action from Hardin Circuit Court based on claims of fraudulent joinder of non-diverse defendant. Eleven months later, Defendants filed motion for judgment on the pleadings and Plaintiff, for the first time, contested the claim of fraudulent joinder. The Court held that Plaintiff's delay in responding to the claims of fraudulent joinder did not estop her from now contesting the claim and, therefore, the Court determined whether the joinder was fraudulent. The Court held that Plaintiff's allegations, if proven, would create a colorable claim for outrage under Kentucky state law and, therefore, that non-diverse Defendant was not fraudulently joined. The Court remanded the case to Hardin Circuit Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.