The case involved a contract dispute in which Precise Tool & Gage Co., the debtor, agreed to manufacture and sell a custom rotary dricap machine to Multiform Desiccants, Inc. for $137,000, with provisions for design updates by a third party and adjustments for modifications. The debtor sought payment for additional costs arising from design changes, delayed drawings, and extra assembly work, while the defendants took early delivery of the machine despite it not yet meeting the contract's 40-hour operational test and asserted a counterclaim for repair labor. The court found that the debtor was entitled to recover $29,894 in extra charges, reduced by a $5,000 agreed deduction and the $3,768 counterclaim, resulting in a net award. The U.S. District Court therefore entered judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $21,126 plus costs.
This case under the Federal Tort Claims Act involved claims by Viola Moody and her mother Hiley Shoffner for property damage and personal injury allegedly caused by negligent supervision and inspection of Moody's home construction by the Farmers Home Administration. The court dismissed Shoffner's claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the administrative claim filed by Moody's attorney did not properly name Shoffner or demonstrate authority to act on her behalf. On Moody's claim, the court granted summary judgment to the United States, holding that FmHA regulations clarified its inspections served only the government's interests in loan security and statutory goals, not the borrower's, so no duty was owed or assumed under the Good Samaritan doctrine.
This case concerned whether the Department of Energy's Y-12 Plant, a nuclear weapons facility in Tennessee, must comply with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for handling hazardous wastes like chromium and mercury, and the Clean Water Act (CWA) for unpermitted discharges into local waterways and groundwater. Environmental groups and the state of Tennessee sued for declaratory and injunctive relief plus penalties, while DOE argued that the Atomic Energy Act barred such regulation as inconsistent. The court ruled that both RCRA and CWA apply, as they do not irreconcilably conflict with the Atomic Energy Act and other environmental statutes already regulate the site, and found DOE in violation of both laws. It reasoned that federal facilities are subject to these statutes and that primary jurisdiction did not require deferral to the EPA. The court ordered DOE to seek the required permits but imposed no immediate injunction or penalties.
In Bell v. Union Carbide Corp., a former employee sued his employer alleging that the company pressured him into resigning through calls to his doctors and other actions, claiming this constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress and violated his rights under a collective bargaining agreement. The case, removed to federal court, involved a pending grievance under the agreement's procedures. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the wrongful discharge claim required exhaustion of the grievance process or proof of the union's breach of its duty of fair representation, neither of which occurred. On the tort claim, the court found it preempted by federal labor law under the NLRA because the underlying facts overlapped with the grievance, the conduct was not sufficiently outrageous to qualify for an exception, and the distress stemmed primarily from the discharge itself.
This case involved a request by the United States to seal a motion to quash three grand jury subpoenas duces tecum issued to Jacob F. Butcher and his attorney, and to hold a closed hearing on that motion. The court granted the request, ordering that the hearing be closed to the public and that related motions, responses, and briefs be sealed. The decision rested on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(5) and (6), which require closure of hearings and sealing of records to the extent necessary to prevent disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury; the court relied on the Advisory Committee Notes explaining that open pre-indictment proceedings often reveal witness identities, targets, expected testimony, and the extent of cooperation, compromising grand jury secrecy. Although some information about the investigation was already public, the court found that an open hearing would still disclose additional details, such as the nature of the documents sought, especially when compared to prior subpoenas, and that the limited public right of access does not extend to such grand jury matters.
In Googe v. Secretary of the Treasury, the plaintiff challenged a $500 penalty imposed by the IRS under 26 U.S.C. § 6702 for filing a frivolous tax return, after he deducted the value of his labor from his wages on his 1982 Form 1040, claiming a refund. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, upholding the penalty. The court reasoned that the return was substantially incorrect and frivolous because compensation for services is included in gross income under 26 U.S.C. § 61, and the authority to assess penalties was properly delegated to the IRS with no due process violation since the taxpayer could seek a refund after assessment.
