This case was a medical malpractice suit brought by the plaintiff against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that two sympathectomy procedures performed at a military hospital were unnecessary and caused her various injuries. The court decided in favor of the defendant, entering judgment that the plaintiff take nothing on her complaint. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the treating physicians deviated from acceptable medical practice or that any negligence proximately caused her injuries, and the surgeries were performed in accordance with proper medical standards; the court also noted but did not rule on a potential statute of limitations defense.
This case involved claims by several Mexican nationals (some undocumented, some legal residents) and a U.S. citizen minor against the City of Peoria, its police officials, and city leaders for alleged unlawful detentions, arrests, and handovers to Border Patrol based on immigration status. The plaintiffs asserted violations of civil rights statutes (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986) and constitutional protections under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence any rights violations, conspiracy, pattern of misconduct, or damages, and that officers were protected by qualified immunity. It therefore entered judgment for the defendants on all claims and denied injunctive relief.
This case involved private non-profit Arizona organizations providing family planning services, including abortion counseling and referrals, that had previously received state matching funds under federal Title XX programs but were barred from eligibility by a footnote in a state appropriations bill prohibiting funds to entities offering abortions, abortion procedures, counseling, or referrals. The court held the footnote unconstitutional. It reasoned that the provision was a content-based restriction on protected First Amendment speech regarding abortion information and referrals, which the state could not achieve indirectly through funding conditions after it could not do so directly, and that the footnote's vague terms would chill protected speech without any demonstrated compelling state interest.
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by Saf-Gard Products, Inc. and the patent owner against Service Parts, Inc. and other defendants after liability had already been established on appeal. The court found the patent valid and infringed, determined that the case was exceptional under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285, and calculated damages based on the defendant's sales of 325,989 infringing devices between patent issuance and the injunction, using lost profits and a reasonable royalty analysis adjusted for the plaintiff's lost market share and price reductions. It awarded treble damages of $3,650,484 plus interest, credited a prior $200,000 judgment against other defendants, and separately awarded $218,434.41 in attorney fees and costs jointly and severally against the remaining defendants. The unfair competition claims were deemed moot because the award rested solely on the patent statutes.
The case involved property owners near Luke Air Force Base challenging the Air Force's decision to base F-15 aircraft there, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act due to an inadequate Environmental Impact Statement on noise, air pollution, and accident risks. The court ruled that the Air Force had fully complied with NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act in preparing and circulating the EIS, which included studies, public hearings, agency reviews, and a final statement filed in 1974. Evidence at trial showed no substantial air pollution or accidents harming local residents from the F-15 operations, that noise impacts were not severe compared to prior aircraft, and that most plaintiffs had acquired their properties after the base's long-standing operations began in 1941. The court concluded that the public interest in maintaining Air Force training capabilities outweighed any localized inconveniences to area residents.
In Pettigrew v. Hardy, the petitioner sought habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after being retried and convicted of second-degree murder, arguing that the retrial violated double jeopardy protections. The case arose when, during the original trial for open murder, the defendant spontaneously referenced passing a polygraph exam in testimony; the trial judge then declared a mistrial over defense objection after offering the option of a bench trial, citing the prejudicial impact on the jury. The court denied the petition, holding that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in declaring the mistrial. It applied the manifest necessity standard from United States v. Perez, concluding that the circumstances warranted the mistrial to serve the ends of public justice without impropriety.