Gene Edward Brooks

This case concerned Amax Coal Company's challenge to Black Lung Excise Taxes assessed under 26 U.S.C. § 4121 on coal sold from its mines, specifically whether the taxable weight included excess surface moisture acquired during mining and washing. The court reviewed the history of the Black Lung Benefits program and the statute's imposition of tax per ton of coal, noting that prior precedent in A.J. Taft Coal Co. v. United States had interpreted 'coal' to exclude excess moisture beyond inherent levels. Following IRS Rev. Rul. 86-96, the court determined that producers may reduce taxable weight for excess moisture if supported by competent evidence demonstrating its existence and amount. The opinion sets forth findings of fact on coal composition, moisture sources, and industry practices to support application of this exclusion to Amax's operations.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

In Greco v. Ford Motor Co., plaintiffs sued Ford after sustaining injuries in a 1992 rollover accident involving their 1989 Bronco II on an interstate highway, alleging the vehicle lacked adequate lateral stability as a design defect. Ford moved for summary judgment on the products liability claims and on the request for punitive damages, arguing that plaintiffs' loss of the vehicle after the accident constituted spoliation of evidence warranting dismissal and that there was insufficient evidence of willful or wanton conduct to support punitives. The court denied all motions, finding that plaintiffs did not act in bad faith in surrendering the totaled vehicle to their insurer and that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding both the underlying defect claims and whether Ford's conduct justified punitive damages under Indiana law. The court noted that expert testimony created factual disputes best resolved at trial rather than on summary judgment.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves the National Labor Relations Board seeking court enforcement of a subpoena duces tecum against The Evansville Courier Co., a newspaper, to obtain the identities of entities that placed help-wanted ads for electricians. The Union had filed charges alleging that its members were denied employment due to union affiliation, and the Board needed the advertiser information to investigate. After the newspaper refused to comply voluntarily or via the Board's process, including a denied petition to quash, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The court ordered the respondent to produce the subpoenaed information within ten days, relying on the Board's statutory authority under the National Labor Relations Act to issue subpoenas and the limited scope of judicial review for such administrative enforcement actions.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved whether debtor David Wayne Smith's unpaid federal income taxes from 1984-1989 could be discharged in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C). Smith had filed accurate tax returns but submitted false W-4 forms claiming excessive exemptions to reduce withholding from his wages, which he admitted doing to increase his spendable income. The bankruptcy court found the debt dischargeable after applying a criminal standard of willfulness that requires bad purpose or evil motive. The district court reversed and remanded, holding that the civil standard applies instead, which requires only a voluntary, conscious, and intentional violation of a known legal duty.

taxescriminal law

In this case, plaintiff Robert U. Carpenter sued the IRS under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, seeking disclosure of supporting documents such as accounting assessment journals and registers related to specific Form 23-C assessment certificates that pertained to his tax liabilities. The IRS moved for summary judgment, arguing that the requested materials were not maintained in a "system of records" retrievable by individual name or identifier. The court granted the motion, holding that the Privacy Act's access provisions did not apply because the Forms 23C contain only aggregate totals without taxpayer-specific identifiers and are not part of any system of records from which information can be retrieved by the individual's name or other identifying particular. The court relied on the declaration of an IRS disclosure specialist confirming that the documents are not accessible in this manner and noted that Carpenter did not dispute these facts, only their legal significance under the statute and regulations.

taxesprocedure

The case Amax Coal Co. v. United States involved a coal company's claim for a refund of Black Lung Excise Taxes paid to the IRS from 1989 to 1991, challenging the IRS's refusal to allow any percentage exclusion for excess moisture in coal sold for less than $13.05 per ton from the Belle Ayr and Eagle Butte mines. AMAX filed quarterly returns, underwent an audit that assessed additional taxes, paid them, and sought refunds that the IRS denied. Both parties moved for partial summary judgment on whether excess moisture could be excluded from the tax base under the relevant contracts and regulations. The court denied both motions, holding that genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the base price per ton already accounted for expected excess moisture content in a way that would affect the proper tax computation.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved 122 former employees of Easter Enterprises, Inc., which operated Great Scot Supermarkets in Evansville, Indiana, suing Easter and Buehler Foods after Easter closed its stores in 1993 and Buehler purchased the assets; the claims centered on the terminations, a collective bargaining agreement, WARN notices, and alleged age and disability discrimination. The court addressed motions to dismiss or for summary judgment filed by both defendants. It granted the motions in part, dismissing Counts 5 and 6, on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to present a prima facie case under the ADEA (which applies only to those at least 40) or other relevant standards.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Linda Baumgart Stephenson sued Aluminum Co. of America after her 1991 termination, claiming she faced sexual harassment creating a hostile work environment, discriminatory transfer and discharge, and retaliation via interference with her worker's compensation claim, all under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Following a bench trial, the court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework (after considering but declining Price Waterhouse) to the pre-1991 claims, crediting plaintiff's evidence of derogatory comments by a supervisor, inadequate responses to her complaints, and a temporal link between her protected activity and adverse actions. The court found that gender was a motivating factor in the employment decisions and that the defendant did not establish legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons sufficient to avoid liability, while noting the jury had already ruled for the defendant on post-1991 claims and state tort claims.

civil rightslabor & employment

Walter Kimbrew was stopped by Evansville police officers near a park suspected of drug activity, frisked during the encounter, and arrested after a white powdery substance was found in his pocket that initially field-tested positive for a controlled substance but later laboratory testing showed was not. He brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the officers violated his constitutional rights through an improper search and false arrest. The court determined that the initial stop and pat-down were permissible but that Officer Evans exceeded the scope of a weapons frisk by reaching into Kimbrew's pockets without specific suspicion of a weapon, resulting in an unlawful seizure, while other officers and the department were not liable. Judgment was entered for Kimbrew against Officer Evans for $1 in compensatory damages and $2,500 in punitive damages, with no attorney's fees awarded due to the nominal recovery and private nature of the claim.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case arose after an employee of Mervis Industries embezzled over $500,000 through fraudulent scrap metal purchases, leading Mervis to obtain a state court default judgment that imposed a constructive trust on the employee's assets, including vehicles whose sale proceeds were held by a county clerk. The IRS later asserted federal tax liens against the same assets and demanded the proceeds to satisfy over $670,000 in tax liabilities. Mervis and an intervenor sought to establish priority for the constructive trust over the tax liens, while the United States moved for summary judgment on the opposite ground and to strike certain briefing language. The court denied the motion to strike and denied all summary judgment motions, holding that factual issues remained regarding the tracing of embezzled funds and the scope of any constructive trust that would determine lien priority under federal and state law.

taxespropertyprocedure

This case concerned whether Springs Valley Bank & Trust Co., as trustee of an ERISA-qualified employee health benefits plan, could lawfully suspend payments to beneficiary Dorothy Carpenter for medical expenses from a car accident due to her alleged failure to cooperate by providing information on other insurance recoveries, executing a subrogation agreement, and agreeing to reimbursement. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment in an action for declaratory judgment and counterclaims for benefits and damages. It recommended granting the motions in part and denying in part, based on analysis of the plan's summary plan description, ERISA procedural requirements, and the beneficiary's obligations under the plan terms regarding subrogation and information disclosure.

healthcareprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a contract dispute between WATS/800, INC. and Voice America, where the defendants removed the action to federal district court. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand, citing a clause in the parties' contract that required any litigation to be brought in Indiana state courts of general jurisdiction in Evansville. The court granted the motion and ordered remand to the Vanderburgh Superior Court. It reasoned that the clause's reference to courts of general jurisdiction had a definite legal meaning selecting state courts rather than federal courts of limited jurisdiction, and that contract interpretation principles required giving effect to this language as a clear forum choice without rendering terms superfluous.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a declaratory judgment action by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company regarding coverage under an Indiana-issued automobile policy for injuries sustained by insured passenger Jill Smith in a Kentucky accident caused by the driver of the insured vehicle. The policy contained a household exclusion barring liability coverage for injuries to insureds or family members and an underinsured motorist exclusion for vehicles insured under the policy or furnished for family use. The court applied Indiana law under choice-of-law rules based on the most intimate contacts and granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment, holding that the exclusions were valid and enforceable because they did not violate Indiana public policy or legislative intent as interpreted in analogous uninsured motorist cases. The court further noted that Kentucky's no-fault statute did not mandate underinsured motorist coverage in these circumstances.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved George Payne’s motion for a preliminary injunction against the Housing Authority of the City of Evansville after he was indefinitely suspended from his job without a pre-deprivation hearing following his arrest on a drug offense. Payne, who had a property interest in his employment, challenged only the lack of notice and hearing prior to the suspension, not the merits of the action itself. The court granted the injunction, ordering reinstatement with full pay and benefits while allowing the authority discretion over job duties, because Payne showed a likelihood of success on his due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, irreparable harm from the constitutional violation, and that the balance of harms and public interest favored relief that preserved his rights without mandating specific work assignments. The decision applied the four-factor test for preliminary injunctions, emphasizing that due process generally requires some form of hearing before depriving an employee of a significant property interest.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

Big Rivers Electric Corp., a Kentucky utility, sued General Electric Co. after one of several purchased transformers malfunctioned and discharged oil onto surrounding soil, seeking damages under strict liability, negligence, and breach of contract or warranty theories. The court applied Kentucky law after determining that the place of the tort and the parties' relationship centered there, despite some manufacturing occurring elsewhere. It granted summary judgment on the strict liability count for damage to the transformer itself but denied it for the soil damage, holding that Kentucky's Product Liability Act does not allow recovery for harm to the product in strict liability even if other property is affected. The negligence claim survived because Kentucky permits such recovery for the product itself, while the contract claim was dismissed as time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations. The ruling turned on distinctions between tort theories, the definition of unreasonably dangerous products, and procedural limits on recovery.

torts & liabilitypropertyprocedure

The case involved a male nursing student at the University of Southern Indiana who sued under Title IX, alleging that sex discrimination caused him to fail a required clinical course (N242) and be expelled from the nursing program. The court granted the university's motion for summary judgment on the Title IX claim. The core reasoning was that the student failed to present a prima facie case of discrimination, the university offered legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons based on repeated documented failures to meet academic and safety standards (such as incorrect medication dosing, unprofessional conduct, and poor patient communication), and the student provided no evidence that these reasons were pretextual or that his sex was a but-for cause of the outcome.

civil rights

The case involved a dispute over which trust should bear federal estate taxes triggered by distributions to the children of Albert and Pearl Woll after their deaths. Pearl's Marital Trust (PWT) provided for income and principal to Albert during his life, with the remainder to the children after his death; Albert's trust (AWT) provided for payments to his second wife. The Estate filed a tax return allocating the taxes to the PWT, but after an IRS audit shifted the burden to the AWT and the Estate paid the assessed amount, it sued for a refund. Applying Indiana law, the court held that the PWT must bear the taxes because its provisions explicitly directed the payment of all estate taxes from its assets before distributions to the children, a directive that became irrevocable upon Pearl's death and could not be altered by Albert's later actions.

taxesproperty

The case involved a wrongful discharge lawsuit brought by the plaintiff after her decedent was allegedly fired in retaliation for exercising rights under Indiana's Workmen's Compensation Law, with damages including the loss of employee benefits under an ERISA-covered plan; the defendants removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment, arguing ERISA preemption. The court granted summary judgment on Counts II, III, and IV after the plaintiff stipulated to it. On Count I, the court denied ERISA preemption, holding that the claim was based solely on state common law for retaliatory discharge and that the loss of benefits served only as a measure of damages rather than the motivating factor for the termination, distinguishing it from Ingersoll-Rand v. McClendon. The court relied on precedents like Pizlo v. Bethlehem Steel and Tippett v. Old Kent Bank to conclude that the state law claim did not relate to an ERISA plan in a way that triggered preemption under 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a).

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved Wausau Insurance Companies' motion to remand a garnishment proceeding to Vanderburgh Superior Court, opposed by Garnishee Defendants Asland Cement Corporation and Asland, S.A., along with cross-motions for sanctions. Wausau contended that garnishment actions are ancillary to the underlying state judgment and thus non-removable under federal law, citing precedents like First National Bank v. Turnbull & Co. The court denied the motion for remand, holding that the removable character of a garnishment action is a question of federal law and that such proceedings qualify as independent actions, consistent with rulings from multiple other circuits including the Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth. The court also denied both parties' motions for sanctions, noting the lack of clear Seventh Circuit precedent on the issue.

procedure

In this case, plaintiff Ross filed suit in Indiana state court against IRS special agents, seeking mandamus relief and a declaratory judgment that he is a non-resident alien whose income is not subject to federal income tax because the United States consists only of the District of Columbia and federal enclaves. The defendants removed the action to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), and moved to dismiss. The court denied the plaintiff's motions to remand and for a hearing on jurisdiction. It held that removal was proper because the agents were acting under color of their office in an IRS investigation, and rejected the plaintiff's arguments that Indiana state courts are not "state courts" for removal purposes or that federal tax authority is limited to federal enclaves, citing contrary precedent such as United States v. Sloan. The court directed the plaintiff to respond to the motion to dismiss by a set deadline.

taxesfederal powerprocedure