Harris Kenneth Wangelin

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.

business & regulatory

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.

torts & liabilityenvironmentfederal power

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.

procedurelabor & employment

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.

business & regulatoryfederal powerproperty

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.

federal powerprocedure

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.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved railroad employees who sought to overturn an unfavorable arbitration decision regarding protective benefits they claimed were owed due to a merger between the Missouri Pacific and Union Pacific railroads, which had been approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission. The plaintiffs argued they were entitled to compensation under the so-called Norfolk and Western Conditions and attempted to bring their challenge in federal district court under the Railway Labor Act. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Railway Labor Act provisions cited by the plaintiffs do not cover arbitration decisions arising from ICC merger orders. Instead, the proper venue for appealing such decisions is the U.S. Court of Appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 2342(5).

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Vanover v. Ford Motor Co., the plaintiffs sued Ford after a fatal head-on collision, alleging that the 1979 Ford Zephyr was defective and not crashworthy because it lacked an airbag passive restraint system. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted Ford partial summary judgment on the airbag claim. The court held that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and related federal standards preempt state tort claims seeking to impose airbag requirements, as Congress intended uniform national vehicle safety rules, and that the car equipped with lap and shoulder belts was not unreasonably dangerous under Missouri's second collision doctrine.

torts & liabilityfederal power

This case involved a homeowner's insurance claim after the plaintiff's house burned down; the insurer refused payment, alleging arson by the plaintiff. A jury awarded the plaintiff damages under the policy, including a penalty for vexatious refusal to pay. The court denied the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, finding that the evidence of the plaintiff's debt and reaction to the fire was insufficient to prove arson as a matter of law, that the insurer lacked a reasonable basis for refusing payment at the time it was due, and that certain hearsay evidence was properly excluded as untrustworthy and prejudicial. The court applied standards requiring it to view evidence favorably to the prevailing party and consider facts known at the time of the refusal.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In this case, plaintiff William Glass sued defendant Allis-Chalmers Corporation after falling from a used combine harvester while attempting to extinguish a fire of unknown origin, alleging strict product liability claims under Missouri law based on the machine's alleged propensity to catch fire, the absence or wear of non-skid safety stripping on its deck, and the lack of adequate warnings. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that the combine was not defective when sold and had undergone substantial change or wear since leaving the stream of commerce. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence showing a defect existed at the time of manufacture or sale, as required under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A adopted in Missouri; the court noted that the safety stripping was present at sale, ordinary wear and tear does not create liability, and circumstantial evidence of fires in similar machines did not exclude other explanations like maintenance issues in a four-year-old used product. The court further found no duty to warn where no underlying defect was proven.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose after the Health Care Financing Administration temporarily excluded plaintiff physician Dr. Kwoun from the Medicare reimbursement program based on a Professional Standards Review Organization determination; an administrative law judge later exonerated him of all charges. Kwoun and three related corporations then sued the PSRO, reviewing physicians, federal officials, and state actors, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985, the Fifth Amendment, and Missouri tort claims including malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On multiple motions to dismiss or for summary judgment, the district court granted the motions in part—dismissing claims against immune federal defendants, certain overlapping tort counts, and claims lacking factual support for the corporate plaintiffs—while denying the motions in part on the remaining civil-rights and tort counts. The court reasoned that some defendants enjoyed absolute or qualified immunity and that duplicate tort theories could not both proceed, but that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding intent and good faith, making summary judgment inappropriate. The net result allowed key claims to advance to trial.

civil rightshealthcareproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a dispute over priority of interests in a Cessna aircraft between Compass Insurance Company, which had obtained and recorded a judgment lien against the original owner Hollywood Flying Services after searching FAA records, and Moore Flying, Inc., which had purchased the plane through a series of unrecorded transfers. The court granted summary judgment to Compass and denied Moore's motion, ruling that Compass held the superior interest. The core reasoning rested on the Federal Aviation Act's recording requirements, which preempt contrary state law and render unrecorded conveyances invalid against third parties without actual notice, as clarified in Philko Aviation v. Shacket, to ensure a reliable central title system.

propertyfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case involved family farmers and their corporation who had received loans from the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act and who alleged that FmHA officials mishandled subordination agreements with a bank, failed to notify them of statutory deferral rights under 7 U.S.C. § 1981a, improperly conducted or approved equipment and land sales, and violated their constitutional rights by denying subsequent loan applications after bankruptcy. The plaintiffs sought damages and other relief against the United States, FmHA, and individual officials. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, holding that certain claims belonged to the bankruptcy trustee, that the corporate plaintiff and one individual lacked standing because they had not dealt directly with the defendants, that the officials were protected by qualified immunity, and that no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights had been violated.

business & regulatoryfederal powercivil rightsprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Dean Raymer sued the United States after sustaining additional paralysis from a cervical spinal cord injury while receiving treatment at a Veterans Administration hospital following a 1979 car accident. The court found the hospital's physicians and staff negligent for failing to order a cervical x-ray, misdiagnosing his condition as a head injury or intoxication, and not stabilizing his spine despite signs of movement and trauma, which allowed further cord damage beyond the initial mid-thigh paralysis. It held the defendant liable under agency principles for the staff's actions and awarded the plaintiff approximately $1.96 million in damages after crediting a prior settlement, covering lost wages, future nursing care, and physical and emotional injuries. The ruling was based on findings that the plaintiff retained some lower extremity movement upon arrival and that proper diagnosis and care would have prevented the progression to quadriplegia.

torts & liabilityfederal powerhealthcare

This case involved the federal government's civil forfeiture action against a 1976 Ford F-150 pickup truck under 21 U.S.C. § 881, alleging the vehicle facilitated the cultivation of marijuana in Perry County, Missouri. The claimant, arrested while tending the plants, sought return of the truck on the grounds that it had not transported any marijuana or been directly involved in the illegal activity. The court rejected this position, adopting the broad interpretation of "facilitate" from Second Circuit precedent in United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan, under which a vehicle need only aid the illegal enterprise in any manner, such as by transporting the claimant and tools to the site. The district court therefore entered judgment for the United States, forfeiting the truck to the government.

criminal lawproperty

The case involved a non-custodial father challenging Missouri's statutory scheme for establishing and collecting "state debt" child support obligations when a custodial parent receives AFDC payments, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief plus damages on state and federal constitutional grounds and class certification. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It held that abstention was required under the Younger doctrine because parallel state enforcement proceedings were pending, those proceedings afforded an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional defenses, and no bad faith or other exception applied, thereby avoiding unnecessary federal interference in state functions.

family lawcivil rightsfederal power

In this case, McDonnell Douglas Corporation sought a declaratory judgment that it was not liable for breach of a 1975 contract to supply emergency spare parts for F-4 aircraft to Iran, after the Iranian Revolution led to the expiration of an irrevocable letter of credit, suspension of shipments, U.S. export license revocations, and loss of communication with Iranian officials. Iran had filed suit in its own courts alleging breach and contended that a forum selection clause in the contract, along with the Algiers Accords, required all disputes to be resolved exclusively in Iranian courts. The court examined the clause's language to determine if it was mandatory and exclusive, reviewed expert evidence on post-revolution changes to the Iranian judicial system, and resolved related motions including one to strike an affidavit regarding the competency of Iranian courts.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation and Noranda Aluminum, Inc., over whether Noranda was obligated to indemnify Kaiser for a judgment Kaiser paid to the family of a Noranda employee killed by equipment designed by Kaiser. After the primary negligence case resulted in a judgment against Kaiser, the court considered cross-motions for summary judgment on the third-party indemnity claim arising from a 1968 license agreement. The court granted Kaiser's motion and denied Noranda's, holding that the plain language of the indemnity clause required Noranda to defend and indemnify Kaiser for claims connected to Kaiser's actions in performing the agreement, which included the design of the equipment, and that the clause contained no time limitation that would exclude post-construction injuries.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved a Navy lieutenant suing the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for alleged medical malpractice and failure to obtain informed consent by Navy physicians during two surgeries for an acoustic neuroma while the plaintiff was on active duty. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It reasoned that the Feres doctrine bars FTCA claims for injuries that arise out of or in the course of activity incident to military service, which applied here because the plaintiff was on active duty status, received treatment at a military medical facility from military surgeons, and remained subject to military authority throughout.

federal powertorts & liability

This case involved a lawsuit by Aetna Casualty and Surety Company and Southwestern Bell against General Electric Company for damages from a 1979 fire in a St. Louis building, which plaintiffs attributed to allegedly defective fluorescent light fixtures and ballasts manufactured by GE. After a six-day trial, the district court entered judgment for the defendant. The court found that plaintiffs' experts offered inconsistent theories on the fire's origin and the fixtures' mounting, that key evidence such as one of the ballasts was missing, and that plaintiffs failed to prove both the existence of a product defect and that any such defect caused the fire. The court rejected reliance on circumstantial evidence precedents because the facts did not establish liability for the specific GE component at issue.

torts & liability