This case involved the United States seeking to recover response costs under CERCLA Section 107(a) from defendant William M. Gurley for cleaning up two Superfund sites in Arkansas: the Gurley Pit Site and the South 8th Street Site. Prior proceedings had established Gurley's liability at the Gurley Pit Site, and the court granted summary judgment on liability while holding a trial on the amount and consistency of costs with the National Contingency Plan. The court awarded the United States $13,986,191.94 for the Gurley Pit Site and $6,979,055.18 for the South 8th Street Site, plus interest and declaratory relief for future costs, and granted the State of Arkansas declaratory relief for its future costs at the South 8th Street Site, after reviewing evidence on payroll exhibits, indirect costs, and consistency with the NCP.
This case was a class action lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by individuals charged with crimes who suffered from mental illness and were held in Arkansas jails while awaiting court-ordered inpatient forensic mental evaluations or commitment for treatment at the Arkansas State Hospital. The plaintiffs alleged that delays in providing these services violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights to adequate mental health care. The court reviewed the state's constitutional and statutory duties under Arkansas law to provide such evaluations and treatment exclusively through the state hospital, examined evidence of extended periods of confinement without care, and applied the deliberate indifference standard to assess whether the conditions violated due process for pretrial detainees rather than the Eighth Amendment.
This ERISA case involved a dispute over the distribution of a deceased participant's retirement plan benefits after his ex-wife and stepdaughter claimed entitlement despite his attempt to name his son as sole beneficiary. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the plan administrator's motion, dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty claim. The core reasoning was that under the plan's Louisiana choice-of-law provision, the beneficiary change was effective under the substantial compliance doctrine because the participant's intent was clear, the plaintiffs had no vested rights at the time, internal procedural requirements primarily protect the plan, and the absence of a QDRO in the divorce decree had no effect on the ability to change a non-vested beneficiary designation.
This case involved a dispute over subrogation rights under an ERISA-governed health plan after Edward Allen died from injuries sustained in an explosion. His wife’s Wal-Mart plan paid over $129,000 in medical expenses, and the estate later settled a wrongful death claim against the auto shop for about $301,000. The plan sought full reimbursement from the settlement proceeds, while the estate argued that Arkansas wrongful death law prevented any recovery or limited it. The court held that ERISA preempts the state statute, the plan’s terms explicitly required 100% reimbursement regardless of whether beneficiaries were made whole or attorney fees were incurred, and the administrator’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious under the abuse-of-discretion standard. Accordingly, the plan was entitled to recover the full amount paid.
This case concerns a magistrate judge's order addressing the sealing of a specific search warrant file (the Wilson file), along with declarations that the Eastern District of Arkansas clerk's office practices and Amended General Order No. 22 were unconstitutional under the First Amendment right of public access recognized in In re Search Warrant for Secretarial Area Outside Office of Thomas Gunn. The district court approved the magistrate's determinations on the extent to which the Wilson file should be sealed or unsealed. However, it declined to adopt the portions of the order declaring the clerk's practices and General Order No. 22 unconstitutional, holding that the movants lacked third-party standing to bring an overbreadth challenge. The court reasoned that the general rule against jus tertii standing applies, the overbreadth doctrine exception is limited and does not confer standing here, and any concerns with the order or practices should instead be addressed by the district judges amending the local rule pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 83 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 57.
This case arose after a U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a search warrant for Carl Ray Wilson's premises, during the execution of which Wilson was killed. A newspaper moved to unseal the confidential file, and the Magistrate Judge not only granted that request but also ordered changes to the district court's docketing procedures for search-warrant files and declared Amended General Order No. 22 unconstitutional. The United States appealed only the portions of the order beyond the unsealing of the specific file. The district court held that a magistrate judge lacks authority to declare local rules or clerk's office procedures unconstitutional and vacated those rulings, treating them instead as a recommended disposition for review by an Article III judge. The court reasoned that magistrate judges' statutory powers under 28 U.S.C. § 636 do not extend to such dispositive constitutional rulings absent clear consent of the parties or referral as a recommended disposition.