William Leonard Hungate

This case concerns a request for enhancement of attorneys' fees following a plaintiff's victory in an employment discrimination action against American National Can Corporation, where the plaintiff had been awarded $16,214.90 in damages and $61,608 in fees. On remand from the Eighth Circuit, the district court considered whether to apply a contingency multiplier to the fee award under the standards from Delaware Valley II, focusing on whether the St. Louis legal market compensates for risk in contingency cases as a class and whether the plaintiff would have faced substantial difficulties finding counsel without the prospect of enhancement. After reviewing affidavits, hearing evidence of a developing trend toward limited enhancements in the local market, and noting the plaintiff's showing of risk and reluctance among attorneys to take such cases, the court granted a 50% enhancement on the original fees but denied any multiplier on supplemental fees for the fee litigation itself, resulting in a total award of $108,299. The ruling emphasized objective market evidence and overall reasonableness without awarding the full 100% enhancement sought.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved plaintiff Conopco suing defendants May Department Stores, Venture Stores, Ansehl, and Kessler for patent infringement, trademark infringement, and trade dress infringement. Following a prior judgment in favor of Conopco, the court addressed multiple post-trial motions from the defendants seeking to amend findings, alter the judgment, or obtain a new trial, along with Conopco's motion to correct a clerical error in the findings of fact. The court granted the correction to change a reference from "nondesigned" to "designed," denied most motions challenging liability and damages based on prior stipulations and evidence of contributory infringement, partially granted Ansehl's motion to recalculate prejudgment interest using specified rates and accrual methods, and granted a stay of execution conditioned on the defendants posting a $5 million supersedeas bond.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Conopco, Inc., the manufacturer of Vaseline Intensive Care Lotion, suing May Department Stores Company, Venture Stores, Benjamin Ansehl Company, and Kessler Containers for patent infringement of its lotion formula under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and for trademark and trade dress infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1121, based on defendants' sales of a competing skin care lotion in similar packaging. After an eight-day bench trial, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ruled that defendants infringed plaintiff's patent, trademark, and trade dress rights, while dismissing defendant Ansehl's counterclaim for bad faith prosecution. The court awarded plaintiff damages of $799,193 (trebled to $2,397,579) for patent infringement and additional trebled damages for trademark and trade dress infringement, plus prejudgment interest, costs, and attorney's fees, and issued a permanent injunction against further infringement and an order for recall and destruction of infringing materials. The rulings rested on trial evidence establishing the validity of plaintiff's patent and the substantial similarity of defendants' product formula and packaging to plaintiff's protected elements.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned cross-appeals in the bankruptcy of Apex Oil Company arising from Customs' claims for repayment of excessive duty drawbacks on petroleum exports and additional duties on oil imports claimed to be of Soviet origin. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that Customs' post-petition actions—including liquidating drawback entries, denying protests, and issuing pre-penalty notices—violated the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) because they constituted continuation of administrative proceedings to recover pre-petition claims. It vacated the bankruptcy court's decision to permissively abstain under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) and delegate the claims to the Court of International Trade, holding that abstention was an abuse of discretion due to the need for duplicative proceedings, strict prepayment jurisdictional requirements in the CIT, and potential conflicts with the confirmed reorganization plan.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff Shirley Teramoto sought judicial review of the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. After the court remanded the matter, an administrative hearing resulted in an award of benefits retroactive to 1980. Plaintiff then moved for entry of final judgment and attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The court granted final judgment in plaintiff's favor and awarded a reduced total of $14,162.60 in fees and costs, finding plaintiff was the prevailing party and the government's position was not substantially justified, while reducing hours claimed by court-appointed counsel for excessive time on briefing and unrelated matters.

healthcarefederal powerprocedure

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court order in the Apex Oil Company proceedings that awarded examiner Lloyd A. Palans a 15% fee enhancement of $170,106.30 on top of his firm's $1,272,137.52 in fees. The district court reviewed whether the bankruptcy judge abused discretion by granting the bonus solely based on the quality of services and results obtained under 11 U.S.C. § 330. The court held that such enhancements require rare and exceptional circumstances not already reflected in the lodestar calculation and must align compensation with comparable non-bankruptcy services, following Ninth Circuit precedent. It reversed the full bonus because the bankruptcy court failed to explain why the lodestar was inadequate or why the enhancement was necessary, but it awarded a reduced $45,288 enhancement to cover the examiner's below-market hourly rate. The standard of review was abuse of discretion, with reversal only for improper legal standards or clearly erroneous facts.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Murray v. Delo, petitioner Robert Anthony Murray, convicted in state court of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his convictions after unsuccessful direct appeals and state post-conviction proceedings. The U.S. District Court denied the petition, ruling that multiple claims (including those numbered 14, 16, 19, and 21-28) were procedurally barred because petitioner failed to show actual prejudice from any alleged ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel. The court further held that the jury instructions on mitigating evidence complied with constitutional standards under Mills v. Maryland and McKoy v. North Carolina, as they did not require unanimous jury findings on each mitigating factor, and that the trial evidence did not support a second-degree murder instruction because it showed deliberate action rather than panic or reflex. The court stayed execution for sixty days but ultimately denied all relief.

criminal lawprocedure

In this diversity case, plaintiffs Irene Hurt and her husband sued Dow Chemical and Rose Exterminators after Irene allegedly suffered personal injuries from exposure to the pesticide Dursban, claiming both defendants failed to warn of its dangers and that Rose was negligent in its application. Dow moved to dismiss the failure-to-warn claims, arguing they were preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The court granted the motion in part and dismissed the failure-to-warn claims (including related loss-of-consortium claims) with prejudice, finding that FIFRA's labeling provisions, particularly 7 U.S.C. § 136v(b), preempt state tort claims that would impose additional or different warning requirements. The court denied the motion as to the remaining claims, holding that FIFRA permits state regulation of pesticide sale and use and does not preempt those theories. The reasoning relied on implied preemption principles, concluding that allowing such tort claims would effectively let states regulate labeling through jury verdicts in conflict with federal standards.

federal powertorts & liabilityenvironmentbusiness & regulatory

In Greene v. United States, a nurse employed at a St. Louis Job Corps Center sued the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries from a fall on cement stairs lacking handrails and covered in mud, seeking damages for a broken ankle. The court found the United States liable after a bench trial, concluding it owned, managed, and controlled the premises at all relevant times and therefore owed a duty to provide safe conditions that it breached by failing to remedy or warn about the known unsafe stairwell. The independent contractor exception to FTCA liability did not apply because of the government's retained control, and the plaintiff was awarded $13,708.20 for medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering with no finding of comparative fault.

torts & liabilityfederal power

In this case, plaintiff Gregory Johnson sought supplemental security income and disability benefits based on alcoholism and lower back pain after initial denials by the Social Security Administration. Following a district court remand for further evaluation of non-exertional impairments, the Secretary awarded the benefits. Plaintiff then moved for entry of final judgment and attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The court granted the motion, finding Johnson to be a prevailing party and determining that the government's position was not substantially justified due to inadequate evaluation of subjective complaints, failure to follow circuit precedents on alcoholism and pain credibility, and selective reliance on certain medical opinions. Fees were awarded at $100 per hour for 51.3 hours of documented work, including administrative proceedings on remand.

healthcareprocedure

This case involved a Title VII claim by plaintiff Jacquelyn Morris, a female machinist at defendant American National Can Corporation's Foster-Forbes facility, alleging sexual harassment by supervisors David Scott and Glenn Besore from 1984 to 1986, including offensive comments and physical contact, which she contended led to her constructive discharge in 1987 after her complaints were not resolved. After a bench trial, the court found that Besore and the corporation were liable for the harassment, which was substantiated by credible testimony, and awarded Morris backpay, prejudgment interest, attorney's fees, retroactive seniority to 1981, and required the company to implement sexual harassment training and a grievance procedure; the claims against Scott were dismissed. The court concluded that the defendants had notice of the issues only after the administrative charge was filed and that their subsequent actions were insufficient to prevent liability, while noting that some conduct ceased after the charge.

civil rightslabor & employment

In this ERISA case, plaintiffs sought full major medical benefits under employer-provided health insurance policies for a minor's hospitalizations to treat severe affective mood disorder, but the insurer limited coverage under the policies' mental illness provisions. After a bench trial, the district court awarded plaintiffs $28,691.70 in benefits plus interest, finding the insurer improperly denied coverage. The court reasoned that affective mood disorder is a physical illness caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain and primarily treated with medication, rather than falling under the policies' undefined mental illness limitations, even though secondary counseling was involved.

healthcarelabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a remand from the Eighth Circuit for a hearing on whether the government's peremptory strikes of two black veniremen in defendant James Lamont Johnson's criminal trial violated Batson v. Kentucky by being based on race. After the hearing, the district court credited the government's explanation that the strikes were based on the jurors' places of employment (from questionnaires) and observations during voir dire, noting that some white jurors were struck for similar reasons and that the government had left three black jurors on the panel. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the government's initial refusal to provide reasons (based on an erroneous view of then-existing law) proved pretext, concluding the stated reasons were genuine and not indicative of racial discrimination. Accordingly, the court reinstated the defendant's conviction and scheduled resentencing.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involved the United States seeking to condemn and destroy shipments of the prescription drug Esgic with Codeine and to enjoin its distributor, Forest Pharmaceuticals, from further interstate distribution, on the grounds that the drug was a "new drug" under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act without required FDA approval for safety and effectiveness. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, ordering the condemnation of the seized drug products and issuing a permanent injunction against their distribution. The core reasoning was that the drug did not qualify as generally recognized as safe and effective by qualified experts, as no adequate and well-controlled clinical studies supported such recognition, and Forest admitted there was no FDA-approved application in effect despite ongoing distribution.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved a pretrial detainee at the Medium Security Institution who sued the facility and various city officials under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3), alleging violations of his constitutional rights including due process, cruel and unusual punishment, equal protection, free speech, and freedom from involuntary servitude. These claims arose from a kitchen sink injury, subsequent denial of medical care and access to courts, and placement in punitive segregation for six days after he refused to work as ordered. Following a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the plaintiff on his due process claim, awarding $600 in nominal damages against certain defendants for the lack of a hearing before segregation, while dismissing all other claims due to insufficient evidence of constitutional violations, personal involvement, or official policies. The court reasoned that pretrial detainees cannot be subjected to punishment without due process and that the segregation was punitive in nature, but found no reckless indifference or other deprivations meeting the required standards for the remaining allegations.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

In Hunter v. Mitek Industries, a dissenting shareholder brought suit under Missouri's shareholder dissenters rights statute after a majority-approved merger of Mitek with Gang-Nail, seeking a court appraisal of the fair value of his 40,591 shares as of the day before the shareholder vote. The court found the fair value to be $48 per share, awarding the plaintiff a principal amount of $1,948,368 plus prejudgment interest. The ruling relied on evidence of the company's value as an ongoing concern, including a related $27.1 million transaction valuation and the plaintiff's expert analysis using standard methodologies, while rejecting minority and marketability discounts as legally immaterial under the statute.

business & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over coverage under a homeowner's insurance policy issued by Prudential to Harley and Anna Mae Rinehart. Their adult son Steven was injured by a discharging shotgun at the parents' home and sought to claim liability benefits against them. The central issue was whether Steven qualified as a "resident" of his parents' household under the policy's definition of "insured," which would exclude him from coverage. Following a bench trial, the court determined that Steven was not a resident of the parents' household at the time of the May 1986 incident, as he had been living indefinitely with his girlfriend and her children in a separate subsidized apartment while maintaining only limited ties to his parents' home. The court therefore held that the policy applied to the incident, obligating Prudential to defend the parents and potentially pay claims arising from Steven's injuries.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityfamily lawproperty

This case involved the U.S. government's civil forfeiture action under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) seeking to condemn $3,550 in currency seized from claimant John Vitale during a consensual vehicle search following a traffic stop. Vitale, previously convicted of cocaine distribution and recently released from prison, had engaged in recorded negotiations with an undercover DEA agent to purchase marijuana, and the seized funds were found in his car along with a passenger who had a drug conviction. After a bench trial, the court denied forfeiture and ordered the money returned to Vitale, holding that the government failed to establish probable cause of a substantial connection between the currency and any planned drug transaction, as Vitale attributed the funds to earnings from odd jobs and no actual exchange occurred.

criminal lawproperty

This case concerned a contract dispute between National Can Services Corporation (and its parent) and Gateway Aluminum Company over an equipment lease for recycling machinery such as balers and conveyors, along with related agreements for flattening and shipping used aluminum cans. Plaintiffs alleged breaches of the lease and processing contracts, while defendant contended that one agreement functioned as security for a conditional sale requiring notice that was not properly given and that plaintiffs failed to act in good faith; defendant also asserted a counterclaim for unpaid amounts. Following a three-day bench trial under diversity jurisdiction, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law analyzing the agreements' terms, including periodic payments, title retention, purchase options at fair market value, and integration clauses, and addressed distinctions between true leases and secured transactions under the UCC as adopted in Illinois.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved environmental groups, the City of St. Louis, and individual plaintiffs challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' 1987 re-evaluation of a 1985 Section 404 permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for development in the Missouri River floodplains and wetlands in St. Louis County. The re-evaluation allowed construction of a domed stadium and parking facilities under the existing permit without a new application or formal modification. Plaintiffs alleged violations of NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Clean Air Act, and related regulations, claiming inadequate consideration of traffic, air pollution, runoff, economic impacts, and cumulative effects, and arguing an Environmental Impact Statement was required. After a bench trial, the court held that the Corps did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably, finding compliance with all applicable statutes, no additional significant environmental impacts from the stadium, and no private right of action under the FWCA. The court dismissed all claims on the merits.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory