Myron Donovan Crocker

The case involved W.H. Breshears, Inc. suing its insurer, Federated Mutual Insurance Company, for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation after an unknown vandal caused approximately 6,500 gallons of gasoline to spill from an aboveground tank in 1990, seeking coverage for cleanup costs and defense against third-party claims under commercial property and liability policies. Federated filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no obligation to defend or indemnify Breshears. The court granted Federated's motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding that the Petro Pac Coverage Part excluded land, water, and pollutant extraction from covered property and debris removal; the Commercial General Liability Coverage Part did not apply to the facts; and Breshears could not prove reasonable reliance or resulting damages on any alleged misrepresentations. The court also granted the declaratory judgment and denied Breshears' motion to vacate and for a new trial.

business & regulatoryenvironmentpropertytorts & liability

This case involved a U.S. Postal Service letter carrier discharged in 1983 for falsifying a medical certificate to cover an absence and for unsatisfactory attendance patterns. After the Merit Systems Protection Board upheld the removal, the employee sued claiming the discharge violated the Rehabilitation Act as handicap discrimination based on chronic back issues. Following review of the administrative record and a de novo trial on the discrimination claim, the court found the employee was not a qualified handicapped person under the Act, as his condition did not substantially limit major life activities and he performed all job duties without accommodation requests. The court therefore affirmed the MSPB decision sustaining the discharge for the proven misconduct and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Schieler v. United States, the plaintiff sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act after being injured by lightning while on Moro Rock in Sequoia National Park, claiming the National Park Service negligently failed to provide warnings or safety devices about lightning risks. The case focused on whether the discretionary function exception in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a) barred the claim and deprived the court of jurisdiction. The court held that the exception applied because decisions on warnings and safety measures were discretionary functions entrusted to the Park Service under its broad statutory mission in 16 U.S.C. § 1 to conserve park scenery and resources while providing for public enjoyment. Relying on precedents such as Dalehite v. United States and United States v. Varig Airlines, the court reasoned that the agency's policies minimizing signs absent a demonstrated need, along with its emphasis on preserving natural conditions, involved protected policy judgments rather than mandatory duties.

torts & liabilityfederal power

The United States, through the Attorney General, sued the Fresno Unified School District and its officials, alleging a pattern or practice of sex discrimination in employment that violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The defendants moved to dismiss, contending that the 1972 amendments to Title VII had transferred the Attorney General's authority to bring such pattern-or-practice suits against public employers to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, holding that the statutory language and legislative history showed Congress intended a complete transfer of this enforcement power to the EEOC, along with the procedural requirements of section 2000e-5, leaving the Attorney General without authority to proceed independently. The EEOC had no involvement in the case and had not followed those procedures.

civil rightslabor & employmentfederal power

This case involved a quiet title action by plaintiff Gendron against the United States seeking to establish ownership of certain California land based on a chain of title tracing back to a 1899 conveyance by C. B. Willingham. The court treated the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings as one for summary judgment after receiving evidence and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The core reasoning was that the action was jurisdictionally barred by the 12-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(f), as the plaintiff's predecessors knew or should have known of the government's claim by at least 1961; it was also barred by the time limits and non-assignability provisions of Public Law 86-596; and the plaintiff failed to state a claim because the original deed conveyed only New Mexico land and a subsequent state court decree did not validly close the gap in the chain of title.

propertyprocedurefederal power

This case involved claims by Phillip and Nina Hamm, operators of Little Folks Swim School, against former employee William Knocke for using the terms DROWNPROOF and DROWNPROOFING in his competing water survival instruction business, along with related unfair competition and copyright infringement of a motion picture titled 'How to Drownproof Your Child.' The court found that the terms were descriptive of the services' purpose rather than distinctive, so the plaintiffs had no protectable trademark or service mark rights and could not prevent the defendant from using them. It ruled that the plaintiffs owned the copyright in the film and that the defendant had infringed it by retaining and using a copy, ordering him to return all copies and enjoining further use or exhibition. The court also issued injunctions preventing the plaintiffs from claiming exclusive rights in the terms or the techniques and barring the defendant from misrepresenting his services as affiliated with the plaintiffs' school.

business & regulatory

The case involved a challenge by landowners and residents in the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District to California Water Code provisions that restricted voting in district elections to landowners, weighted their votes by assessed land value, and organized the district into malapportioned divisions. Plaintiffs argued these rules violated the Equal Protection Clause by excluding non-landowners and diluting small landowners' votes. The court upheld the landowner-only franchise and weighted voting, reasoning that the district was a limited-purpose entity focused on water storage that primarily benefited and was funded by landowners, creating a compelling state interest that justified the restrictions and made one-person-one-vote principles inapplicable. However, it found the existing divisions malapportioned because their assessed valuations differed substantially, giving unequal voting power, and held that no adequate state remedy existed, so federal relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was available.

electionscivil rightsproperty

The case involved the United States seeking an injunction against the Tulare Lake Canal Company to prevent the delivery of water stored at Pine Flat Dam to any land holdings exceeding 160 acres without compliance with reclamation law requirements. The court denied the injunction, holding that the reclamation laws, including the acreage limitation, did not apply to the water stored behind the dam. The reasoning was that the dam was constructed under the Flood Control Act of 1944 as a flood control project by the Army Corps of Engineers, not as a reclamation project, with irrigation benefits being incidental; Congress did not intend to impose acreage limits, and the water users had vested rights and paid for the storage costs.

federal powerenvironmentbusiness & regulatoryproperty

The case involved plaintiffs alleging that noise and vibration from jet engine testing at a nearby Air Force base constituted a partial taking of their property under the Tucker Act and a trespass and nuisance under the Tort Claims Act. The court ruled in favor of the defendant United States. The Tucker Act claim was dismissed as barred by the six-year statute of limitations, which began running when the plaintiffs purchased the property in 1957, and the court found the plaintiffs' testimony about later awareness uncredible. The tort claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under the discretionary function exception, as the location for engine testing was a discretionary decision by the government.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose in a bankruptcy proceeding where the IRS and other government entities filed claims for unpaid taxes, including some asserted as secured liens. The bankruptcy referee disallowed the IRS lien claims and reduced its general tax claims after the District Director failed to appear at a hearing on an order to show cause, treating the absence as a default. The district court reversed the referee's order and remanded the matter, holding that a properly filed proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the tax liabilities and liens, which shifts the burden to objectors and cannot be disregarded solely due to nonappearance absent conflicting evidence or other aggravating factors.

taxesprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case Drown v. United States involved taxpayer Joseph W. Drown seeking a refund for alleged overpayment of 1948 federal income taxes due to disallowed deductions for a $50,000 partial business bad debt from loans to Design Associates, Inc., and $28,515.54 in business expenses. The court examined whether the loans made by Drown, who was a 50% stockholder and officer in the corporation, qualified as business bad debts under § 23(k)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 or as non-business bad debts under § 23(k)(4), and whether the cancellation of part of the debt constituted a bad debt loss or a capital contribution. The core reasoning focused on the taxpayer's multiple business activities, including hotel management and various ventures, to determine if his lending and promotional activities were sufficiently continuous to be considered part of his trade or business, drawing on precedents like Giblin v. C.I.R. and others.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

In Noren v. Beck, plaintiffs challenged administrative decisions by the Bureau of Land Management denying their desert land entry applications and sought a trial de novo under the Administrative Procedure Act to present new evidence that the lands were suitable for reclamation and agriculture. The court held that judicial review is confined to the existing administrative record and does not permit a full retrial of the facts. The core reasoning is that the APA requires courts to review the whole record to determine whether agency action was arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence, while longstanding precedent establishes that the Department of the Interior's factual findings on public land claims are conclusive absent fraud or imposition. The court also noted that the Desert Land Entries Act does not mandate formal hearings with witness testimony.

federal powerpropertyprocedure

The case involved Miles Laboratories, an Indiana corporation selling the registered and incontestable trademarked antacid product Alka-Seltzer nationwide since 1930, suing California defendant Henry J. Frolich (doing business as Encino Chemicals) who sold a similar headache and upset stomach remedy under the name Milk-O-Seltzer. The plaintiff sought an injunction against use of the name and an accounting for damages under the federal Lanham Act. The court held that Milk-O-Seltzer did not infringe the Alka-Seltzer trademark and denied all relief. The core reasoning was that the defendant’s mark was not likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception among reasonable purchasers as to the source of the goods, a factual determination based on the specific marks, products, and circumstances rather than expert testimony or precedent from dissimilar cases.

business & regulatory