Joseph Patrick Lieb

This case involved a motion for further relief in a long-running school desegregation lawsuit against the Hillsborough County school board, alleging that the existing plan failed to dismantle the prior dual system of white and black schools as required by federal court precedents. After multiple rejected submissions relying on freedom-of-choice transfers, the board proposed a revised plan using geographically defined attendance zones, faculty racial balancing, limited transfer options, and pairing of certain schools. The court approved the plan in full except for a one-year grandfathering provision for sixth-, ninth-, and twelfth-graders, finding that the zones were fairly drawn to advance integration, faculty assignments eliminated racial disparities in staffing, and any remaining single-race schools resulted from housing patterns rather than board policy. The order directed immediate implementation for the 1969-70 school year while retaining jurisdiction for enforcement.

civil rights

This case involved a claim by plaintiff Alice Kilpatrick under the Equal Pay Act provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging wage discrimination by her employer because she was paid less than male employee Lyndon Warren for work she claimed required equal skill, effort, and responsibility from June 1964 through July 1965. The court ruled for the defendants and found no violation of the Act. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to carry her burden of proving the pay difference was based on sex; instead, the evidence established that differences in job responsibilities (Warren's assistant role involved greater independent judgment, accounting knowledge, and cash handling), a de facto seniority system, and Warren's longer employment tenure justified the thirty-cent hourly differential.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case concerned claims by DeSilva Construction Corp. that defendants infringed its copyright in architectural plans for a model home titled “McCall Colonial Ranch” and engaged in unfair competition by using similar designs. The court dismissed the complaints with prejudice after finding that the plans were published without statutory copyright notice, were freely distributed to subcontractors and the public during construction and open-house events, and that copyright protection for drawings does not extend to the three-dimensional buildings or ideas depicted. The court also dismissed the defendants’ counterclaim for lack of supporting evidence and awarded costs to the defendants.

property

The case involved Greyhound Corporation seeking to enjoin the National Labor Relations Board from conducting a union representation election under the National Labor Relations Act that treated Greyhound as a joint employer alongside Floors, Inc., of Florida, for porters, janitors, and maids at Greyhound's Florida terminals. The court granted a permanent injunction against the election, denied the Board's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, and held that the Board's findings did not establish a joint employer relationship. The core reasoning was that the undisputed facts showed Floors, Inc. was an independent contractor that exclusively handled hiring, firing, pay, supervision, and benefits for the workers, making Greyhound's limited involvement insufficient under the Act to qualify it as an employer; the court further determined that the Board exceeded its statutory authority in Section 9 by including non-employees of Greyhound in the proceeding, consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Leedom v. Kyne.

labor & employmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involved federal mail and wire fraud charges against James R. Hoffa and Robert E. McCarthy, Jr., stemming from an alleged scheme in 1956-1957 to defraud Teamsters-affiliated labor associations and their members through false representations about land sales by Sun Valley, Inc. After an earlier indictment was dismissed due to improper grand jury selection, a new grand jury returned a superseding indictment that added counts and a conspiracy charge. The defendants moved to dismiss on multiple grounds, including legal insufficiency of the charges, violation of the statute of limitations, and the claim that the indictment rested on evidence obtained through illegal wiretapping and mail surveillance. The court denied the motions to dismiss, holding that the new indictment qualified as a valid reindictment under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3288 and 3289, that no limitations bar applied, and that the defendants had not shown any illegal evidence was actually used to procure the indictment.

criminal lawprocedurelabor & employment

The case involves multiple foreign airline companies from Latin American countries suing the Dade County Port Authority, operator of Miami International Airport, to enjoin enforcement of its prevailing rate schedule for airport use. The plaintiffs claimed the rates violated provisions of the Chicago Convention and various Bilateral Air Transport Service Agreements between the United States and their home countries. The court reviewed the airport's history as a proprietary operation funded solely by its own revenues, the airlines' permits from the Civil Aeronautics Board, and principles of treaty interpretation and supremacy. It reasoned that ratified international agreements and executive agreements have the force of federal law and preempt conflicting state or local actions, while analyzing whether the specific charges complied with those obligations.

business & regulatoryfederal power

In United States v. Hoffa, the defendants including Teamsters president James Hoffa faced a twelve-count indictment charging them with using the mails and wires to further a scheme to defraud labor associations and members through false representations in land sales. The court granted the motions to dismiss the indictment after hearing evidence on the grand jury's selection. The ruling rested on findings that the jury commissioner failed to satisfy the statutory requirement of belonging to the opposing political party from the clerk and that the panel was drawn exclusively from registered voters with additional restrictions on women, resulting in a group that was not a fair cross-section of the community. The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing the government to seek a new indictment before a properly constituted grand jury.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over insurance coverage for an $80,782 judgment against Keys Engineering Company arising from the 1956 fatal injury of employee Noard L. Baker aboard the dredge Clearwater. Keys sued its two insurers, American Casualty Company (under a standard workmen’s compensation and employers’ liability policy) and Boston Insurance Company (under a ship owners liability policy), after Boston paid $55,000 and both refused further payment. The court found that Baker fell outside Florida’s workmen’s compensation act, triggering Coverage B (employers’ liability) in American’s policy, and that the policies’ overlapping “other insurance” clauses required pro-rata allocation. Applying the formula in American’s policy, the court held American liable for its proportionate share (25,000/105,282.04) of the loss and Boston liable for the remainder less its prior payment, plus interest, costs, and attorney fees.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involved extradition requests by the Republic of Cuba for two defendants convicted of murder who had escaped to the United States. The court denied the requests, finding that the offenses were political in character and thus exempt from extradition under the treaty between the US and Cuba. The evidence showed the murders occurred during the early stages of the Cuban revolution as part of mopping-up operations by revolutionary forces, without personal malice toward the victim. The demanding government failed to rebut this evidence or prove the crimes were not political. The complaints were dismissed, and the defendants discharged from custody.

criminal law

This case involved six African American schoolchildren in Dade County, Florida, who sued the local school board as a class action seeking a declaratory judgment that state constitutional and statutory provisions requiring racial segregation in public schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment, along with an injunction to compel desegregation. The court denied the requested injunctive relief. It reasoned that the board had adopted resolutions implementing the Florida Pupil Assignment Law for pupil assignments and that the plaintiffs had not exhausted the administrative remedies available under that law before turning to the federal court for relief.

civil rightsprocedure

This consolidated case involved three related lawsuits by jewelers Julien and Harriet Balogh and David Balogh against their respective insurers (Jeweler’s Mutual, Western Assurance, and Pennsylvania Lumbermens) seeking coverage for the loss of consigned diamond rings under jeweler’s block and property floater policies. The court found that the policies covered the rings while in the possession of the assured businesses, that the consignment agreements placed the risk of loss on the consignees, and that the insurers had not established any applicable exclusions or policy defenses by a preponderance of the evidence. It therefore held the insurers liable for most of the claimed losses (with specific dollar amounts awarded) and allowed subrogation recovery by two insurers against the Baloghs as third-party defendants.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a claim by Sel-O-Rak Corporation against Henry Hanger & Display Fixture Corporation and related entities for infringement of a design patent on a circular garment display rack and for unfair competition. The court determined that the defendants had infringed the valid patent by copying and selling similar racks, and awarded the plaintiff damages measured by the defendants' profits from the infringing sales or a reasonable royalty. The court issued a permanent injunction against further infringement but declined to award treble damages or attorney's fees, reasoning that the infringement was not willful given prior judicial doubts about the patent's validity. The decision was based on evidence of the defendants' copying shortly after the patent's issuance and the need to compensate the plaintiff for the infringement.

business & regulatoryproperty