This case involves Patrick R. Allen's application for Social Security disability insurance benefits, which the Commissioner denied after finding he was not disabled from his alleged onset date of February 1, 2000, through his date last insured of September 30, 2005. The court reviewed the administrative decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and determined that it was not supported by substantial evidence. The court remanded the case, noting issues such as the ALJ's failure to properly evaluate whether substance use was a contributing factor to any disability and potential effects of incarceration on eligibility. The reasoning centered on the need for the ALJ to address these factors in the five-step disability analysis.
The case involved parents suing their son's life insurer under ERISA after the denial of accidental death benefits for a fatal single-vehicle crash. The insurer had refused payment on the ground that a blood alcohol level of 0.172 percent rendered the death foreseeable and therefore not an "accident" within the policy terms. On cross-motions for summary judgment the court granted each motion in part and denied each in part. It first held that ERISA preempted the state-law claims for breach of contract, bad faith, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, leaving only the ERISA claim. The court then reviewed the denial under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard applicable to the plan's grant of discretionary authority and concluded that further proceedings were required on the ERISA benefits issue.
Mary Clark sued Brumbaugh and Quandahl, P.C. (B&Q) and Capital One for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Nebraska Consumer Protection Act, claiming improper attempts to collect on a credit card debt after she filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Capital One settled, leaving B&Q as the remaining defendant. The court denied Clark's summary judgment motion and granted B&Q's, holding that B&Q qualified for the bona fide error defense because the bankruptcy suggestions it received did not reference the Capital One account and B&Q followed its standard procedures for closing files upon actual notice of bankruptcy. The court also sustained Clark's objection to B&Q's bill of costs, declining to find bad faith.
In Keating v. Nebraska Public Power District, downstream water appropriators sued the Nebraska Public Power District and the Department of Natural Resources over the administration of surface water permits on the Niobrara River, claiming a violation of procedural due process rights when upstream junior appropriators continued diverting water during periods of scarcity without adequate process or compensation. The case reached the district court on remand from the Eighth Circuit solely on the due process claim. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motions, holding that DNR's regulatory actions in issuing closing notices and managing calls did not deprive the plaintiffs of a protected property interest in their appropriation permits.
This case arose from a 2003 boat accident in the Cayman Islands that injured a passenger, leading to a $3.9 million judgment against the boat owner (plaintiff Graske) after the insurer (defendant Auto-Owners) declined to settle within policy limits; plaintiffs then sued the insurer for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty based on alleged failures to investigate and settle. The court addressed three motions: the defendant's motion to compel discovery responses, the plaintiffs' motion to compel more detailed responses to interrogatories and document requests, and the defendant's motion for leave to file a second amended answer asserting an affirmative defense. The court granted the motions to compel in part and denied them in part, ordering supplemental responses to specific interrogatories and document requests by August 21, 2009, because some privilege objections lacked merit or were waived while others were valid, and because Rule 33(d) responses to interrogatories via document production required sufficient specificity to allow the requesting party to locate responsive materials. The court denied the motion to amend because good-faith reliance on counsel's advice does not constitute an affirmative defense in this context.
This case involves a dispute between two nonprofit organizations, WWP, Inc. and Wounded Warriors, Inc., both providing services to injured veterans, over the use of similar names and web addresses. WWP sued for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, unfair competition, and violations of the Nebraska Deceptive Trade Practices Act (NDTPA), seeking a preliminary injunction to stop Wounded Warriors from using the domain woundedwarriors.org and related marks. The court denied the injunction on the trademark and unfair competition claims, finding WWP unlikely to succeed on the merits because it had disclaimed exclusive rights to the phrase 'wounded warrior project' apart from its registered logo. However, the court granted a limited injunction on the NDTPA claim, ordering Wounded Warriors to cease using its current domain until trial and to include disclaimers on other sites to reduce donor confusion. The decision rested on the Dataphase factors for preliminary relief, emphasizing the probability of success on the merits alongside irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest.
