William Robert Collinson

This case is an appeal from U.S. Bankruptcy Court orders that first partially allowed and then fully denied debtors Ben P. and Shelba Jean Gaines exemptions for funds in an ERISA pension plan and IRAs. The bankruptcy court initially permitted a $50,000 exemption under Missouri statutes but later revoked all exemptions after discovering the debtors had concealed a bed-and-breakfast business, ruling that the concealment was intentional and fraudulent and that the business rendered the funds unnecessary for support. The district court reviewed the matter de novo on legal issues such as jurisdiction to amend opinions after a notice of appeal and the scope of federal and state exemption provisions under 11 U.S.C. § 522 and Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 513.427 and 513.430, while applying a clearly erroneous standard to factual findings. The opinion addresses whether ERISA anti-alienation provisions qualify as exempt federal law and the effect of debtor misconduct on exemption claims.

propertyprocedure

In this products liability action, a minor plaintiff and her parents sued Bic Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores, and Andover Togs after she suffered severe burns when a Bic lighter flared up and ignited her shirt, alleging that both the lighter and the shirt were unreasonably dangerous due to defects. Bic moved for partial summary judgment, construing part of the complaint as claiming the lighter was defective because it lacked child-proof or child-resistant features. The court granted the motion only as to the child-proofing claim, reasoning that Missouri law does not impose liability on manufacturers of adult products for failing to make them child-resistant, while permitting the remaining claims of general design defects, failure to warn, and negligence to continue.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the State of Missouri, acting through its attorney general, suing a Texas-based time-share seller and a related entity under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act for alleged deceptive sales practices, seeking injunctive relief, appointment of a receiver, civil penalties, and restitution for affected consumers. After the defendants removed the action from state court to federal district court, the plaintiff moved to remand. The court granted the motion and ordered remand, holding that federal question jurisdiction was absent because the complaint asserted only state-law claims and any federal constitutional issues appeared solely as defenses, and that diversity jurisdiction did not exist because a state is not a citizen for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

The case involved a federal prisoner who filed a habeas corpus petition after the Bureau of Prisons denied his request for assistance in artificially inseminating his wife with his semen, citing his desire to have a child before his wife's age increased risks of birth defects. The court overruled a magistrate's partial recommendation and denied the petition, holding that the prisoner had no fundamental constitutional right to procreate through artificial insemination that survives incarceration. The reasoning centered on the limitations imposed by imprisonment, which restricts rights inconsistent with prison status or penological goals, the absence of any affirmative governmental duty to facilitate such procedures, and the lack of an Eighth Amendment violation since denial of the request was neither excessive nor disproportionate to the crime.

criminal lawcivil rightsfamily law

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court order directing the turnover of a physician debtor's accounts in an ERISA-qualified profit-sharing plan and a related Keogh plan to the bankruptcy trustee for inclusion in the estate. The appellants argued that the funds should be excluded from the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2) due to ERISA's anti-alienation provisions or because the plan qualified as a spendthrift trust under Missouri law, or alternatively exempted under § 522(b)(2)(A) as federal law. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that the funds were neither excluded nor exempted, finding that applicable nonbankruptcy law for exclusion purposes refers only to traditional state spendthrift trusts (which this plan did not qualify as) and that ERISA does not provide an exemption under § 522(b)(2)(A) based on circuit precedent. The core reasoning emphasized that nearly all debtor property interests enter the estate under § 541(a) unless narrowly excluded, and exemptions are limited to specified categories.

propertybusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves copyright owners suing radio station operators for publicly performing copyrighted musical compositions without permission. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, finding that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of infringement through copyright registrations and evidence of unauthorized performances on the defendants' stations. The defendants failed to raise any genuine issues of material fact or demonstrate permission for the performances. The court deferred decisions on statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees pending an evidentiary hearing.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a federal inmate's habeas corpus petition challenging the U.S. Parole Commission's decision to require him to serve approximately 80 months before parole eligibility, well beyond the 24-36 month guideline range based on his offense severity and salient factor score. The petitioner had been convicted of conspiracy and related charges stemming from bribery and pension fund fraud while serving as a Teamsters Union official, and he had provided compelled testimony under immunity grants in other federal investigations, including one involving organized crime links to the union. The court found that the Commission had improperly relied on the immunized testimony, presentence report details, and prior statements in exceeding the guidelines without adequate justification. It ordered the Commission to conduct a de novo parole reevaluation excluding that information and to provide a detailed explanation if again recommending a departure from the guidelines. The ruling was based on the need to honor the immunity protections and statutory parole standards.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a motion for attorney's fees following a Section 1983 civil rights action in which plaintiff Sidney R. Griffin prevailed against Ozark County, Missouri, and obtained a $500 judgment plus fees. The court appointed counsel and, after the plaintiff prevailed on his claims, applied the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988) to determine a reasonable fee award. Using the lodestar method of multiplying documented reasonable hours by reasonable hourly rates and considering the Johnson factors, the court approved compensation for 169.3 hours of work plus expenses, resulting in a total award of $11,176.55 plus interest.

civil rightsprocedure

The case concerned a civilian GS-3 clerk-typist at Fort Leonard Wood who sued the Secretary of the Army under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, alleging failure to accommodate her physical limitations following a radical mastectomy that impaired prolonged typing, as well as retaliation for asserting her rights. The court reviewed the plaintiff's employment history, the effects of her 1977 surgery on her arm and shoulder, changes in supervision starting in 1983 that led to continuous beltline typing assignments, and the incident in which she fainted from muscle cramps. The court concluded that the plaintiff's condition met the definition of a handicap substantially limiting a major life activity, that she was otherwise qualified for her position, and that the agency had not provided reasonable accommodation as required by 29 U.S.C. § 794.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a federal prisoner who was assaulted by another inmate at the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, resulting in a minor injury from a pencil stab. The plaintiff sued several Bureau of Prisons employees individually under the Eighth Amendment and the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging failure to provide a safe environment and improper classification of inmates. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding no evidence that the prison officials had any warning of the specific danger or were negligent in their duties. It reasoned that prison officials exercise broad discretion in security matters, the plaintiff failed to show personal involvement by the defendants, and no clearly established constitutional rights were violated based on the record after discovery.

criminal lawcivil rightstorts & liability

The case involved the Secretary of Labor alleging that a restaurant owner violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not compensating part-time employees for time they spent waiting at the restaurant after arriving at their scheduled times but before being clocked in to work. The court found that under the employer's policy, employees were engaged to wait for the employer's benefit rather than waiting to be engaged, making the waiting time compensable. It determined that employees typically waited about 30 minutes on most scheduled days, leading to violations of the minimum wage provisions. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding back wages and enjoining future violations, with further hearings on damages if needed.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a crossclaim filed in a pending state court action, which the crossclaim defendant sought to remove to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). The crossclaim plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that the statute does not permit removal of only the crossclaim rather than the entire case. The court granted the motion to remand, reasoning that the plain language of the statute and supporting case law do not allow piecemeal removal of actions, and that removal provisions must be strictly construed with doubts resolved against federal jurisdiction. The court further observed that a majority of authorities hold that Section 1441(c) applies only to claims introduced by the plaintiff and does not authorize removal by a crossclaim defendant.

procedure

The case involved a federal prisoner who sued prison officials, including the warden and Bureau of Prisons director, alleging denial of access to his prison classification study and presentence report, and seeking inspection, copying, expungement, and damages under the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact. It held that the classification study was exempt from disclosure under the Privacy Act because it concerned the prisoner's physical and mental health and was validly exempted by Bureau of Prisons regulations to protect correctional interests. The presentence report was deemed a court record rather than an agency record, exempt from agency disclosure requirements even when held by prison staff.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved franchisees suing their franchisor for alleged fraudulent misrepresentations in two franchise agreements and seeking rescission of those contracts. The court granted the defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings under the Federal Arbitration Act. The core reasoning was that the agreements involved interstate commerce, the arbitration clauses were broad enough to cover the claims, and challenges like fraud, duress, and rescission to the entire contract must be resolved in arbitration rather than by the court, following Supreme Court precedent in Prima Paint Corp.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

This case involves consolidated products liability claims against manufacturers of multi-piece wheel rims, focusing on pretrial motions by Goodyear, Firestone, Kelsey-Hayes, and Budd to exclude from evidence letters exchanged with NHTSA official Lynn Bradford regarding an engineering analysis (EA9:005) of rim safety defects and related manufacturer responses. The court denied the motions in full. It held the Bradford letters relevant under Rule 401 because they support claims of inherent defects, admissible under the public records hearsay exception of Rule 803(8)(C) as evaluative reports from an official investigation with sufficient trustworthiness based on the agency's expertise, data sources, and lack of bias, and not excludable under Rule 403 because their probative value outweighed risks of prejudice or jury confusion. The court further found the manufacturers' responsive letters admissible as party admissions or business records under Rule 803(6).

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case was a wrongful death action brought by the divorced parents of a 17-year-old boy against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that negligent design, construction, and maintenance of a road in a government recreation area caused the son's death in a one-car rollover accident. The court entered judgment for the defendant, finding that the road's design was a discretionary function exempt from liability and that the government was not negligent in construction or maintenance. The core reasoning was that the accident resulted from the driver's excessive speed of approximately 45-50 mph on a sharp curve posted at 10-20 mph, with no credible evidence of excessive gravel, missing warning signs, or other government-created hazards as the proximate cause, and that the driver was familiar with the road.

torts & liabilityfederal power

In Tortora v. Petrovsky, a federal prisoner challenged the U.S. Parole Commission's decision to void his previously granted parole after he was convicted of conspiring to bribe a prison warden, an offense that occurred before his parole hearing. The Commission acted under a regulation allowing it to reopen cases where a prisoner had withheld significant information, citing the petitioner's failure to disclose the conspiracy during the parole process. The court granted the writ of habeas corpus, holding that the voidance violated the petitioner's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination because it effectively penalized him for not volunteering incriminating information, even without being directly questioned about it. The court rejected arguments that seeking parole constituted a waiver of Fifth Amendment rights or that the action was merely remedial.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved a wrongful death action filed in federal court under Missouri law following a fatal car accident on September 19, 1979. The plaintiffs, including the personal representative of the deceased's widow and guardians for the minor children, sued the defendants more than one year after the death but within the newly extended three-year statute of limitations. The court addressed two issues: whether the 1979 amendment to the Missouri Wrongful Death Act's statute of limitations applied retroactively to claims that had not yet expired, and whether a wrongful death cause of action passes to the personal representative of a surviving spouse who dies without filing suit. The court ruled that the amendment applied retroactively, allowing the suit to proceed on timeliness grounds, but held that the cause of action did not survive to the widow's personal representative because she had not appropriated it by filing suit prior to her death, leading to dismissal of those claims. The decisions were based on interpretations of prior Missouri cases like Uber v. Missouri Pacific Railroad and Pedroli v. Missouri Pacific Railroad, as well as the relevant statutes.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case was a state court lawsuit by Missouri plaintiff Bandag of Springfield, Inc. against Iowa defendant Bandag, Inc. and two Missouri corporate defendants that was removed to federal court after the plaintiff attempted to dismiss the resident defendants mid-trial. The federal district court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the action to state court. The court reasoned that the state trial judge ultimately ruled the dismissal ineffective and withdrawn, so complete diversity never existed to support removal, and that even if it had, the removal petition was filed more than thirty days later in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

procedure

The case involves a Missouri-based chiropractor suing several Kentucky and Virginia defendants, including an academy and association, over a magazine article that republished an old letter accusing the plaintiff of copyright infringement in his biomagnetics seminars, leading to claims of tortious interference with contracts, unfair competition, federal and state antitrust violations, patent misuse, and libel. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction under Missouri's long-arm statute and improper venue in the Western District of Missouri. The court held that it had personal jurisdiction because the defendants were amenable to service under the long-arm statute, but venue was improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) as the claims did not arise in the district. It therefore transferred the case to the Western District of Kentucky under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and denied the other motions without prejudice for renewal after transfer.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory