Affiliations

• Gold Cross Ambulance v. City of Kansas City

  District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1982-05-07 · cited 15×

  Plaintiffs Gold Cross Ambulance and Transfer & Standby Services, two private ambulance companies, sued the City of Kansas City, MAST, and various individuals alleging violations of the Sherman Act sections 1 and 2, Missouri antitrust statutes, and constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment. The suit challenged the city's creation and implementation of a single-provider ambulance service system, which allegedly resulted from a conspiracy to restrain trade and monopolize the market while depriving plaintiffs of due process and equal protection. The court treated the defendants' motions to dismiss as motions for summary judgment and granted them in part and denied them in part. It reasoned that ambulance services have traditionally been a matter of local concern without extensive federal regulation, allowing the city's actions to qualify for state-action antitrust immunity under the Parker doctrine and the Tenth Amendment, and that plaintiffs lacked a protected property interest in continued operation or a specific bidding process to support their due-process claims.

  business & regulatorycivil rightshealthcare

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (10,066 words)

• Anderson v. Pryor

  District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1982-04-22 · cited 5×

  This case involves a motion by the Pryor law firm to disqualify Gage & Tucker from representing five creditors in a legal malpractice counterclaim arising from bankruptcy proceedings related to Way-More Feeds. Pryor argued that Gage had previously represented Pryor in related matters, potentially receiving confidential information that could be used against it under Canons 4, 5, and 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. After reviewing stipulations, testimony from an evidentiary hearing, and correspondence between the firms, the court found no clear evidence that confidential information had been imparted or would be misused. The court denied the disqualification motion, reasoning that the facts did not warrant the prophylactic rule of disqualification and that alternative remedies, such as protective orders or fee disallowance, could address any future issues if confidential information were actually used.

  proceduretorts & liability

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (5,600 words)

• Bartlett & Co., Grain v. Union Pacific Railroad

  District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1981-12-04 · cited 2×

  Bartlett & Co., Grain operated a grain elevator served only by Union Pacific and sought a preliminary injunction requiring the railroad to provide switching services for 200 leased private covered hopper cars marked BRAX after re-marking from prior ATW markings. The court denied the motion, ruling that the underlying dispute over OT-5 authority, tariffs, and switching obligations falls within the primary jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The court further held that Bartlett failed to show irreparable harm because it had access to other private cars at the facility and could use the BRAX cars at other locations, and any competitive disadvantage was not sufficiently proven.

  business & regulatoryprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (6,385 words)