Dissent invokes the Excessive Bail Clause by its plain terms and limits weight of hearsay evidence under the governing statute without resort to evolving standards. United States v. Gladney ↗
The case concerned whether defendant Andrew Graves Gladney should be held without bail pending his federal criminal trial. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting the government's motion for pretrial detention. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) and (f), the court upheld the finding that no release conditions would reasonably assure the safety of others or the community, supported by clear and convincing evidence. The opinion consists of a brief affirmance followed by a dissent that challenged the reliability of the evidence relied upon by the district court.
The case involved the Sierra Club and others challenging the Forest Service's land and resource management plan for the Ouachita National Forest, including its use of even-aged timber harvesting and herbicides, under the National Forest Management Act and National Environmental Policy Act via the Administrative Procedure Act. The court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the record and dismissed the case. The core reasoning was that review of agency actions is highly deferential, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the agency's decisions were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, certain claims had not been raised during the administrative appeals process, and some challenges were barred by the statute of limitations.
This case concerns a bankruptcy dispute in which Jones Truck Lines, Inc., liquidating under Chapter 11, sought permission to use cash collateral in which Corestates Bank held a pre-petition security interest. The bankruptcy court authorized the use, granting the bank superpriority liens on all assets and a superpriority administrative claim as adequate protection under the Bankruptcy Code. The Unsecured Creditors Committee appealed, contending that the court erred by not first determining the value of the bank's collateral and by allowing a liquidation without a formal plan of reorganization. The court affirmed, reasoning that a valuation finding was unnecessary amid uncertainties about recovery, that unsecured creditors had no protected interest in blocking the bank's adequate protection, and that the Final Order's disclosure requirements and lack of collusion satisfied the standards for a plan-free liquidation sale.
This diversity case concerns a former truck driver who sued her employer for wrongful discharge after being called to active military duty and later terminated based on a mistaken belief she had filed an OSHA complaint, as well as for defamation arising from negative employment references that hindered her job search in Arkansas. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction under the Arkansas long-arm statute and forum non conveniens. The court denied the motion, holding that the statute conferred jurisdiction over both claims because the plaintiff alleged tortious injury occurring in Arkansas from out-of-state acts and the defendant derived substantial revenue from business activities in the state, which also satisfied Fourteenth Amendment due process requirements.
In this case, Daniel Pearson sued his employer and its group health insurer in state court for breach of an insurance contract by denying claims related to his daughter, later amending to add a bad faith tort claim. The defendants removed the case to federal court asserting ERISA preemption and federal question jurisdiction, but Pearson moved to remand on grounds that removal was untimely. The court granted remand, holding that the original complaint was already removable because ERISA preempts the state contract claim and transforms it into a federal claim for benefits, and that adding the bad faith claim provided no new jurisdictional basis or substantial change to the suit since it was likewise preempted by ERISA.
In the 1980s, the EPA investigated hazardous waste discharges from a lumber treatment plant in Arkansas and entered a consent decree requiring cleanup by the responsible companies. Nearby landowners sued the EPA under CERCLA and state common law, alleging that the remedial plan was inadequate in scope, negligently implemented, and failed to prevent ongoing contamination of their property, seeking damages and a court order to expand the cleanup. The court granted summary judgment to the EPA, holding that the plaintiffs provided no evidence the agency's actions fell outside its statutory authority or the national contingency plan or that the EPA was negligent, that state-law claims required exhaustion of administrative remedies, and that the court lacked authority to reopen or modify the consent decree.