The case involves approximately 5,000 members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints suing Utah and Arizona state officials over their reformation and administration of the United Effort Plan Trust, a communal property arrangement rooted in the church's religious doctrines of consecration. Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, claiming the officials' actions violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment by entangling government with religious practices. The court framed the core issue as whether the trust reforms had a secular purpose and effect or instead advanced or inhibited religion, citing precedents such as Lemon v. Kurtzman and cases involving displays or accommodations with religious elements. The opinion reviewed the historical background of the FLDS church, polygamy laws, and the trust's origins but did not reach a final ruling on the motion in the excerpted portion.
The case involved the tragic accidental death of high school student Tucker Thayer, who shot himself with a blank-firing handgun during rehearsals for the play Oklahoma at Desert Hills High School. His parents sued drama teacher Michael Eaton, vice principal Robert Goulding, and the Washington County School District under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of substantive due process under the state-created danger doctrine, as well as procedural due process, familial association, and equal protection. The court granted judgment on the pleadings to Goulding and the school district on all claims and to Eaton on all claims except the danger creation theory, finding insufficient allegations of deliberate conduct or personal animus for the other claims but enough facts to proceed against Eaton on whether he recklessly disregarded obvious risks by allowing the student to handle the gun contrary to agreed safety rules.
This case is a bankruptcy appeal concerning ownership of the domain name freecreditscore.com in the proceedings of debtor Steve Paige. The Bankruptcy Court ruled after trial that the domain was owned personally by Paige, not by his LLC, and awarded it to the liquidating trustee and Consumerinfo.com. The District Court affirmed that judgment, relying on registration records, payment history, and other facts showing personal ownership at the time of pre- and post-petition transfers. The court also considered but did not resolve cross-appeals on damages and a suggestion of mootness, treating the ownership ruling as an alternative basis for affirmance.
This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court's confirmation of one Chapter 11 plan and denial of a competing plan in the bankruptcy of Steve Zimmer Paige, which centered on the estate's rights to a valuable internet domain name that had been transferred without the trustee's knowledge. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling confirming the joint plan proposed by the Chapter 11 trustee and ConsumerInfo.com, which provided for full payment to creditors through sale of the domain name interest. The court found that the joint plan met all applicable requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a), including the absolute priority rule under the fair and equitable standard of § 1129(b), based on the evidence in the record. Because § 1129(c) permits confirmation of only one plan, the court concluded it was unnecessary to decide whether SMDI's competing plan was confirmable.
This case concerned whether Wilshire Insurance Company was obligated to pay on an MCS-90 endorsement attached to Espenschied Transport's liability policy for a consent judgment stemming from a fatal highway accident caused by a wheel detaching from a leased trailer. The plaintiffs, the Herrod family, had settled wrongful death claims with both Espenschied and DATS Trucking (the tractor owner), receiving payments from DATS's insurers, and then sought the MCS-90 limits directly from Wilshire after Espenschied assigned its claims. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied Wilshire's, holding that the endorsement was triggered by the consent judgment against Espenschied as a motor carrier accused of negligence, that the leasing arrangement and prior settlement with another carrier did not alter this obligation, and that Wilshire could seek reimbursement afterward from Espenschied or others if appropriate.
In Kee v. R-G Crown Bank, the plaintiff, after losing multiple prior lawsuits including a consolidated RESPA action, filed claims challenging the validity and enforceability of his mortgage note and trust deed in an effort to halt non-judicial foreclosure proceedings by Fifth Third Bank (successor to R-G Crown) and related parties. The court granted the defendants' motions for injunction, barring the plaintiff from direct contact with defendants or their agents, requiring continued representation by his attorney, and denying his motion to withdraw counsel. All claims were dismissed on grounds including issue preclusion from prior adjudications on the note's validity, failure to state a claim, lack of Article III standing for alleged statutory violations, and violation of an earlier court order enjoining re-litigation of the same issues.
