The case involved Grace Church of the Roaring Fork Valley challenging the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners' denial of a special use permit for church facilities on its property, alleging violations of RLUIPA provisions against substantial burdens on religious exercise, unequal treatment, religious discrimination, and unreasonable limitations, as well as related constitutional claims under §1983. After the Board reversed its denial through a 2008 resolution and the parties settled the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, the court addressed the remaining damages claims. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed all claims, holding that the Board's corrective actions under 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-3(e) eliminated any RLUIPA violations, that facial and as-applied challenges to the land use code lacked support, that equal protection and hybrid rights claims failed for insufficient evidence, and that individual commissioners were entitled to quasi-judicial and legislative immunity.
The case was a patent infringement suit brought by CCC Group, Inc. (formerly Air Control Science) against Martin Engineering Company concerning three patents on dust control systems for bulk material handling in mining and industrial settings. Following a jury trial that found one patent valid and infringed, the court later granted judgment as a matter of law on infringement and then conducted a bench trial on Martin's counterclaim of inequitable conduct. The court determined that the plaintiffs committed inequitable conduct during patent prosecution by withholding prior art references and misrepresenting the novelty and inventorship of the claimed inventions to the PTO. Based on clear and convincing evidence of this misconduct, the court declared all three patents unenforceable and awarded Martin attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
This case was a wrongful death action under the Federal Tort Claims Act brought by the heirs of five passengers killed when their Cessna aircraft crashed into a hillside near Sitka, Alaska, in 2003, alleging negligence by an FAA air traffic controller in providing guidance during an instrument flight. The court found the controller negligent for failing to recognize the aircraft's distress, confirm the pilots' understanding of the correct GPS approach procedure after changing from an LDA DME approach, and ensure the plane was established on a safe course before handing off to local services, while also attributing fault to the pilots for navigation errors including misidentifying waypoints. Under Alaska comparative fault principles, the court apportioned 40% liability to the government controller and 60% to the pilots based on the controller initiating the chain of errors but the pilots having the final opportunity to correct course using available instruments.
The case involved photographer Neal Beidleman suing Random House for copyright infringement and fraudulent concealment after the publisher printed 85,642 copies of an illustrated edition of Into Thin Air using his Everest photos, exceeding the licensed 25,000-copy limit specified in a 1998 agreement. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the copyright claim was not barred by the three-year statute of limitations because Beidleman did not discover the excess printing until 2006 through investigation, applying the discovery rule rather than the injury rule. It also held that the fraudulent concealment claim was not preempted by federal copyright law, as it included an extra element of misrepresentation regarding print run intentions that allowed for distinct damages under state common law.
This case involved Tu Anh Dinh's claim for long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed group policy issued by Standard Insurance Company to her corporation after two car accidents caused reported brain injury, cognitive impairment, headaches, and physical pain that she said prevented her from working as an executive recruiter. Standard denied the claim multiple times, finding insufficient medical evidence of disability under the policy's own-occupation standard. The court reviewed the denial under the arbitrary and capricious standard modified by a sliding scale of deference due to the insurer's conflict of interest as both administrator and payer. It concluded that the denial was not supported by substantial evidence in the record because Standard did not give full consideration to the opinions of treating physicians, applied a biased approach to the medical reviews, and failed to account for the cognitive demands of Dinh's sole-proprietor role. The court ordered payment of unpaid benefits for the first 24 months of coverage plus interest and attorney's fees.
The case involved motion picture studios suing companies like CleanFlicks, Family Flix, CleanFilms, and Play It Clean for creating and distributing edited versions of copyrighted movies by removing content such as sex, nudity, profanity, and violence. The court granted partial summary judgment to the studios on their copyright infringement counterclaims, issuing a permanent injunction against the defendants' activities. The core reasoning was that the defendants infringed the studios' exclusive rights under the Copyright Act by reproducing the movies through unauthorized digital copying, preparing derivative works via editing, and distributing the altered copies commercially, without any valid defenses.