The case concerned Liberty Life Insurance Company's request for a declaratory judgment that it owed no benefits under two life insurance policies issued on the life of Dr. Donald Schaffer, who died by suicide in 1985, due to alleged misrepresentations in the applications and the non-accidental nature of the death. The beneficiaries, the insured's father and wife, counterclaimed for payment of the $250,000 principal amounts under each policy. Following a trial, the court ruled for the beneficiaries and awarded them the full benefits, statutory interest, penalties, and $50,000 in attorney fees each. The reasoning centered on the policies' terms making the attached application the entire contract, with only Part I of the application (and not the medical portions) actually attached, which under applicable law barred the insurer from relying on any misrepresentations to deny coverage.
Eric Will and his mother sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act after Eric, then nearly 17, became a quadriplegic when he dove from a tree into the Current River at the Ozark National Scenic Riverway Park and struck the bottom. The court ruled for the defendant after trial, finding no liability because the natural conditions at the swimming hole were open and obvious, Eric had visited and dived there many times before and knew the risks, and the Park Service had no superior knowledge. The court further concluded that warning signs would not have deterred the activity, no rangers were present to give warnings, and the tree was not a hazardous condition under park policy since it posed no threat except to those who chose to climb and dive from it. Judgment was therefore entered for the United States.
This case involved a motion by the plaintiff union to disqualify the defendants' law firm and impose sanctions after one of the firm's attorneys photocopied and reviewed over 200 of plaintiff's note cards containing work product and strategic impressions, which had been left in a conference room during a deposition. The court disqualified the entire Tockman firm (including the departed attorney Laderman) from representing the defendants, holding the firm vicariously responsible for the misconduct under principles of partnership and professional corporation liability. It also awarded sanctions consisting of approximately $25,637 in attorney's fees and $3,394 in expenses, payable jointly by the firm and Laderman individually, based on the court's inherent authority to protect the integrity of the litigation process. The reasoning emphasized that misconduct by one attorney taints the firm and cannot be purged by subsequent events like the attorney's departure, and that no separate hearing on sanctions was required given the attorneys' awareness of their actions.
This case involved three solvent production credit associations challenging regulations and a capital directive issued by the Farm Credit Administration under the Farm Credit Amendments Act of 1985, which required them to purchase obligations or submit to assessments by the newly created Farm Credit System Capital Corporation. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the actions exceeded statutory authority and violated their Fifth Amendment due process rights. The court ruled for the plaintiffs, declaring the regulations at 12 CFR § 611.1142 unlawful and void, and permanently enjoining the defendants from enforcing the directive or making assessments against the associations. It reasoned that the regulations were arbitrary, capricious, not in accordance with law, in excess of statutory authority, and failed to account for impacts on borrowers or the associations' financial viability, thereby depriving the plaintiffs of property without due process.
In Voelker v. FBI, plaintiff Paul Voelker sued the FBI under the Privacy Act of 1974 seeking access to withheld portions of his personnel file, specifically three pages from 1973 reports. The FBI withheld the information claiming exemption under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(5) to protect the identity of confidential sources who provided information about the plaintiff's background. After conducting an in camera review, the court granted summary judgment to the FBI, finding that the information was provided under an implied promise of confidentiality and that disclosure would reveal the sources' identities.
In Davis v. City of Charleston, Mo., plaintiff Carol Davis challenged her incarceration for criminal contempt after failing to pay a court-imposed fine, arguing that Judge Edward C. Graham violated her rights by ordering jail time without first holding a hearing to determine whether nonpayment stemmed from poverty rather than willful contempt. The district court had previously granted summary judgment against the judge for failing to follow procedures under Missouri Revised Statutes § 560.031 and equal protection principles from cases like Tate v. Short. On the defendant's motion to amend the judgment, the court denied relief, clarifying that a hearing was required once the plaintiff raised an inference of inability to pay but confirming that inaction alone could justify incarceration without one. The court also addressed the plaintiff's request for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 as a prevailing party, awarding reduced fees and costs after finding the case did not warrant enhancement or recovery for unsuccessful claims.