James Maxwell Moody

In Williams v. Norris, a state prisoner sued Arkansas Department of Correction officials alleging that his prolonged confinement in administrative segregation violated his due process and equal protection rights due to inadequate periodic reviews. Following a trial, the court found that defendants Harmon, Moncrief, James, Evans, and Harris violated the plaintiff's due process rights by failing to provide meaningful reviews of his administrative segregation status over many years, though it dismissed claims against defendant Hobbs and found no equal protection violation. The court awarded nominal damages of $4,846 (calculated at $1 per day for 4,846 days in segregation) under precedents allowing such awards despite the Prison Litigation Reform Act's bar on compensatory damages without physical injury, while denying punitive damages for lack of evil motive or reckless indifference.

civil rightscriminal law

The case involved a dispute over responsibility for costs to relocate underground telephone lines as part of a private real estate development project. The Whisenhunts sold property to Fellowship Bible Church and, under related development and sale agreements, committed to performing site improvements including utility work and road changes around the properties in Little Rock; they sought to require Southwestern Telephone L.P. to bear the relocation expenses. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It reasoned that the project was not a public works undertaking, the Whisenhunts were the dominant moving party that triggered the need for relocation through their private development plans, and established precedent places such costs on the private developers who initiate and can plan for them.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In Bell v. Norris, Arkansas inmate Albert Bell filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his two convictions for first-degree murder and consecutive life sentences arising from a 1992 grocery store robbery and shooting. The case had proceeded through multiple state court proceedings, including a jury trial, appeals on suppression issues regarding custodial statements, and post-conviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, all of which upheld the convictions. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the petition after reviewing the claims on the merits and procedural grounds, and the district court adopted those findings and recommendations in full following de novo review. The court therefore entered judgment dismissing the habeas petition in its entirety with prejudice.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

The case involved an attorney who was sanctioned and suspended for five years from representing claimants before the Social Security Commissioner, leading him to sue the agency for alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 406, the APA, and his statutory and constitutional rights. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) because that provision applies only to individuals seeking benefits, not attorneys, and that neither the APA nor § 406 confers review authority. Even assuming jurisdiction existed, the court found the suspension decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the plaintiff's due process claims regarding standards of proof, panel composition, witnesses, and regulatory sanctions lacked merit.

procedurecivil rightsfederal power

This case involved a class action by custodial parents in Arkansas alleging that the state Office of Child Support Enforcement violated federal requirements under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act and the Due Process Clause by failing to promptly disburse child support payments, provide adequate notice of collections and distributions, offer mechanisms to correct errors, and avoid imposing administrative fees or recouping mistaken payments. The plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking enforcement of specific statutory provisions on timing, notice, and fees. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the cited provisions of Title IV-D do not create enforceable individual rights under § 1983 and that the plaintiffs lacked a protected property interest under state or federal law sufficient to support a due process claim. The court reasoned that the statutes do not unambiguously impose the detailed obligations asserted by the plaintiffs and that available state remedies were not shown to be inadequate.

family lawcivil rightsfederal power

In United States v. Hively, a criminal trial, journalist Sandy Davis and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette moved to limit her testimony after being subpoenaed as a witness by both the prosecution and defense. Davis indicated she would refuse to answer most of the defense's proposed questions, claiming a journalistic privilege analogous to attorney-client privilege, even though the questions did not seek confidential sources. The court denied the motion to limit testimony, holding that movants failed to establish any applicable privilege that would justify refusing to answer relevant questions, and directed Davis to appear and testify or face consequences. The ruling emphasized that the questions were relevant to the defense and did not implicate protected information, consistent with limits on reporter privileges recognized in cases like Branzburg v. Hayes.

criminal lawfree speechprocedure

This case involves Pathfinder Healthcare, Inc., a nursing home provider, seeking to prevent the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from terminating its Medicaid and Medicare provider agreements before completing the administrative appeal process. The court decided to convert a temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction enjoining the termination to allow Pathfinder to finish its appeals. The court determined it had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because denying the limited relief would amount to the practical equivalent of a total denial of judicial review, as in Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc. The court applied the Dataphase factors and found irreparable harm to Pathfinder's 91 fragile residents if forced to relocate and a strong likelihood of success on the merits, noting that the cited violations did not involve immediate jeopardy and termination for non-immediate jeopardy issues is rare.

healthcarefederal powerprocedure

This case was a qui tam action under the False Claims Act brought by relators on behalf of the United States against contractors involved in the cleanup of the Vertac hazardous waste site. The relators alleged that defendants tampered with monitoring equipment on an incinerator to circumvent regulations and submitted false claims for payment. After a trial on specific issues of tampering and defendants' knowledge, the court found the primary witness's testimony not credible and unsupported by other evidence, and determined that defendants lacked actual knowledge or reckless disregard of any tampering. The court concluded that plaintiffs failed to prove any knowing submission of false claims and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

business & regulatoryenvironment

The case involved a dispute over coverage under an ERISA employee benefit health plan for medical expenses exceeding $55,000 from a car accident where the beneficiary had a blood alcohol level of .344%. The Plan's claims administrator, CBS, paid the claims and sought reimbursement from stop-loss insurer Canada Life, which denied the claim under an exclusion for treatment resulting from an illegal act including DWI. The court granted Canada Life's motion for summary judgment and denied CBS's, holding that the exclusion was unambiguous and did not require a criminal conviction or charge. It further reasoned that the unchallenged blood test results, taken shortly after the accident, established that the beneficiary was engaged in an illegal act at the time of the injuries, making the expenses uncovered under the Plan.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a lawsuit by Henry Boerner, on behalf of his late wife Mary Jane Boerner, against Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company seeking damages for injuries and death allegedly caused by her smoking the defendant's cigarettes for 36 years under theories including inadequate warnings and defective design. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the remaining claims after earlier dismissing others as preempted by federal law. On the failure-to-warn claim, the court held that the plaintiff could not prove proximate causation because evidence showed Mrs. Boerner had ignored existing warnings and health information, rebutting any presumption that an adequate warning would have been heeded. On the defective-design claim, the court found no evidence that any design defect caused her injuries or that she would have used proposed safer alternatives, as she only smoked unfiltered cigarettes. Previously dismissed claims for fraud and post-1969 warnings were dismissed again to preserve the record for appeal.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiffs Mary Jane Boerner and her husband sued Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company for damages after she became addicted to cigarettes in the 1940s, developed lung cancer and emphysema, and died, asserting claims of fraud, negligence, and strict liability under Arkansas law based on the company's alleged failure to warn, defective design, and misrepresentations. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the fraud claim due to lack of individual reliance, on all post-1969 failure-to-warn claims as preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, and on related conspiracy allegations, but denied summary judgment on pre-1969 strict liability and negligence claims as well as certain post-1969 claims limited to design defects, inadequate testing, and manufacturing issues. The core reasoning rested on Arkansas adoption of comment i to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, which treats tobacco as not unreasonably dangerous when risks are common knowledge; federal preemption of state warning requirements after 1969; and the absence of evidence supporting reliance or underlying fraudulent acts for the fraud and conspiracy counts.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a union health and welfare trust fund suing several cigarette manufacturers and related entities to recover reimbursement for medical payments made to beneficiaries for tobacco-related illnesses. The plaintiffs alleged violations of federal RICO and antitrust laws, as well as various state statutory and common laws, based on claims that the defendants conspired to conceal health risks of smoking and manipulated addictive qualities of cigarettes. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all claims with prejudice, finding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted even assuming the factual allegations were true.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatorylabor & employmenthealthcare

This case involved antitrust claims by multiple boat manufacturers against Brunswick Corporation alleging violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts in the markets for stern drive and inboard marine engines, along with related state law claims. After pretrial rulings narrowed the issues, a jury found for the plaintiffs on their antitrust claims and awarded over $44 million in damages, which the court trebled to approximately $133 million. The opinion addresses the parties' post-trial motions for attorneys' fees and costs under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, granting the plaintiffs a reduced award of about $7.78 million in fees and $1.27 million in costs based on a lodestar calculation of reasonable hours and rates while denying Brunswick any fees on its counterclaim due to its minimal success. The court's reasoning focused on the plaintiffs' prevailing party status, the complexity and duration of the litigation, and the need to scrutinize requested fees for reasonableness without enhancing normal billing rates.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Williams v. Motel 6, the plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit in Arkansas state court alleging that Motel 6 and its managers engaged in systematic racial discrimination against minority guests, including an incident where the plaintiff was arrested after a background check, in violation of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act and other state laws. The defendants removed the case to federal district court asserting diversity jurisdiction, but the court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand. The court reasoned that the defendants failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, as punitive damages claims by class members could not be aggregated and no showing was made that the named plaintiff's individual claim met the jurisdictional threshold.

civil rightsprocedure

Plaintiffs, a group of boat manufacturers, sued defendant Brunswick Corporation alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act based on various exclusionary discount programs, long-term contracts, and acquisitions that allegedly harmed competition in the market for stern drive and inboard marine engines. Brunswick counterclaimed, alleging an unlawful group boycott by the plaintiffs and related state-law claims. After a ten-week trial, the jury found for the plaintiffs on their antitrust claims, awarded them $44.4 million in damages, and rejected Brunswick's counterclaims. Brunswick then renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) and moved for a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence, improper damage calculations, and errors in the jury instructions. The court denied both motions, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and that the instructions adequately stated the law.

business & regulatory

This case involved an insurance agency suing Travelers Indemnity Company and Great American Insurance Companies after losing a client due to a lapsed ocean marine insurance policy on a houseboat. The plaintiff sought damages for lost commissions under negligence and intentional interference with business relationship theories, claiming the insurers failed to handle the policy renewal and claim properly following the sale of the ocean marine division. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding no legal duty owed to the plaintiff by the insurers regarding policy renewals or claims handling, and no evidence supporting intentional interference. The decision was based on the absence of any contractual or common law duty and insufficient facts to establish the elements of interference.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case concerned a challenge by insurance companies, HMOs, employers, and unions to Arkansas’s Patient Protection Act of 1995, which required health benefit plans to allow patients greater choice of providers and prohibited insurers from imposing financial incentives or conditions that favored certain providers. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the PPA was preempted by ERISA and an injunction against its enforcement, while defendants and the intervening state argued the law regulated insurance and fell within ERISA’s savings clause. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, declaring the PPA preempted by ERISA’s broad preemption provision and permanently enjoining its enforcement against the plaintiffs’ plans, while denying the defendants’ cross-motion. The core reasoning was that the PPA directly related to employee benefit plans governed by ERISA, the statutory carve-out for self-funded ERISA plans did not save the remainder of the law, and no genuine factual disputes existed.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryfederal power

In Breedlove v. Earthgrains Baking Companies, Inc., plaintiffs alleged that the defendant violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act by failing to provide 60 days' advance written notice before closing its Little Rock facility, seeking back pay for each calendar day of the violation period plus a civil penalty. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the statute's language on damages was ambiguous and that legislative history indicated back pay should be calculated based only on actual working days within the 60-day period rather than all calendar days; the court also noted that plaintiffs had conceded proper notice to local government officials, eliminating the civil penalty claim. The decision relied on the remedial purpose of the Act and Senate Report language specifying that damages restore wages the employee would have earned if the notice period had been observed.

labor & employment

This case involves present and former canine police officers suing the City of Little Rock under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime compensation related to various off-the-clock activities, including care for their assigned police dogs, maintenance of take-home vehicles and equipment, and for alleged retaliation through an internal affairs investigation after filing the lawsuit. The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, ruling that activities such as feeding, exercising, grooming, training, and providing veterinary care for the dogs are compensable under the FLSA when performed off-duty, as they are integral to the officers' principal duties. It denied the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment and other motions, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the time spent on vehicle maintenance, application of the de minimis doctrine and Portal-to-Portal Act, the city's work period for overtime calculations under the law enforcement exemption, estoppel based on reporting procedures, and causation in the retaliation claim, all of which require resolution at trial.

labor & employment