This case involved a lawsuit by the Lundeens against Canadian Pacific Railway arising from allegations that implicated federal railroad safety regulations under 49 U.S.C. § 20106, with disputes over whether state tort claims were preempted. Earlier proceedings addressed subject matter jurisdiction in federal district court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367, leading to a remand order, an appeal reversing it, a merits dismissal of the complaint, and a subsequent appeal. The panel majority's decision on these matters prompted this dissent from the denial of panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, which argues that appellate jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 was limited to the later merits judgment, that prior jurisdictional rulings could not be revisited, and that the analysis overlooked Supreme Court precedent on jurisdiction, the regulatory nature of tort claims, and due process limits on retroactive changes to preemption defenses.
This case involves an appeal from a bankruptcy court's decision in a Chapter 11 proceeding regarding whether an oversecured creditor could include attorney's fees in its allowed secured claim under 11 U.S.C. § 506(b). The bankruptcy court ruled that such fees could not be included because the fee agreement was unenforceable under Nebraska state law. On de novo review, the district court reversed, holding that the 1978 Bankruptcy Reform Act established a federal standard allowing reasonable fees provided under the agreement, with the term "fees" encompassing attorney's fees, and that this federal rule controls over contrary state law. The court remanded the matter for a determination of the reasonableness of the fees.
This case involved Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company suing Franklyn Novak for trademark infringement after Novak marketed T-shirts, mugs, and other items using the phrases 'Mutant of Omaha' and 'Mutant Kingdom' along with logos resembling Mutual's Indianhead design, often with nuclear holocaust themes. The court ruled in favor of Mutual on its claims under the Lanham Act, the Nebraska Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and common-law trademark infringement, finding a likelihood of consumer confusion as to the source or sponsorship of the products, but rejected the trademark disparagement claim. Novak's arguments that his designs constituted protected political parody or satire under the First Amendment did not prevent liability. The court issued a permanent injunction barring Novak from using the infringing designations and logos on his merchandise. The core reasoning focused on the substantial similarity between the marks and the potential for confusion despite the non-competing nature of the goods.
This case involves the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) pursuing a deficiency judgment against defendants who guaranteed defaulted promissory notes from an insolvent Nebraska bank. After the state court dismissed the case under Nebraska law for improper notice of collateral sale, the FDIC removed the action to federal court and sought to proceed under federal common law. The court decided to deny the defendants' motions to dismiss or remand and granted the FDIC leave to amend its complaint, ruling that federal common law applies instead of state law. The core reasoning was that the FDIC, as an involuntary creditor in purchase and assumption transactions, requires uniform federal rules to maintain stability in the banking system, as analyzed under the factors from United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc.
This case is an appeal from a Bankruptcy Court order in a Chapter 7 proceeding involving Annett Ford, Inc., a Ford dealership. The Bankruptcy Court had ruled that unpaid post-petition payroll taxes qualified as administrative expenses payable from the secured creditor's collateral proceeds under 11 U.S.C. § 506(c), but that interest and penalties on those taxes did not benefit the creditor and should not be paid from that fund. The District Court reversed, holding that the penalties and interest must also be paid from the liquidation proceeds. The court reasoned that the debtor continued operating with the secured creditor's approval to preserve going-concern value, and that the taxes, interest, and penalties were an inseparable package arising directly from those post-petition activities that benefited the creditor.
This case involved a personal injury lawsuit brought by Thoris C. Mickelson against Northern Plains Natural Gas Company after he was injured at a pipeline construction site. Mickelson had received workers' compensation benefits from his employer, Willbros, which was contracted by the Northern Border partnership, of which Northern Plains was a partner and also served as construction manager. The court ruled that Northern Plains was not immune from the suit under South Dakota's workers' compensation laws. The reasoning was that Northern Plains was not Mickelson's direct employer, and its role as construction manager created separate duties for which it could be held liable independently of any immunity tied to the partnership's payment of insurance premiums.
