Frederick Alvin Daugherty

This case involved debtors who converted their Chapter 13 bankruptcy to Chapter 7 and sought to avoid a creditor's non-purchase money security interest in various household and personal items under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) and Oklahoma exemption law. The bankruptcy court denied the motion without a hearing, allowing exemption only for one television set based on a prior agreement. On appeal, the district court affirmed, holding that the local bankruptcy rule permitted the court to decline a hearing in its discretion and that the bankruptcy court's determination the items were not necessities of life under state law was not clearly erroneous, citing Tenth Circuit precedent requiring case-by-case evaluation.

propertyprocedurefederal power

The case involved an inmate's Section 1983 civil rights complaint challenging the Oklahoma Department of Corrections' decision to raise his security classification from medium to maximum based on a prior escape, which allegedly made him ineligible for certain programs and affected his parole prospects. The plaintiff claimed violations of the ex post facto clause, double jeopardy, equal protection, and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous, holding that the classification system uses objective criteria and discretionary authority properly delegated to prison officials under state law. It reasoned that inmates have no constitutional right to a particular classification or hearing absent arbitrary action or conditions violating the Constitution, citing precedents such as Meachum v. Fano, and found the process neither arbitrary nor punitive in a constitutional sense.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved a former probationary postal worker who sued the U.S. Postal Service under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, alleging he was terminated due to an actual or perceived handicap, and seeking reinstatement and back pay. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff did not qualify as a handicapped individual under the Act because he had no substantially limiting impairment and was not regarded as such by his employer. The court reasoned that the plaintiff's slow casing performance stemmed from his refusal to follow training instructions rather than any disability, that any perception of limitation was based on observed performance issues, and that the Act does not require reassignment to a different position as a reasonable accommodation.

civil rightslabor & employment

In Duncan v. United States, parents of a daughter with Down’s Syndrome sued the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to enjoin interference with obtaining the “U” Series drug from out of state and to obtain declaratory relief, claiming the drug was essential for their daughter's development and education. The plaintiffs argued that the drug was not a “new drug” under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, that required administrative approval processes were unduly burdensome, and that they were denied equal protection and due process. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that no equal protection violation existed because the statute and agency actions did not single out Down’s Syndrome patients for discriminatory treatment, that the drug met the statutory definition of a new drug requiring an approved new drug application which plaintiffs had not pursued, and that the court lacked jurisdiction to review such matters or grant the requested relief, following precedents such as Rutherford v. United States.

healthcarecivil rightsfederal power

The case involved two corporations seeking tax refunds for 1973-1975 after the IRS treated them as part of a brother-sister controlled group under 26 U.S.C. § 1563, which would limit them to a single surtax exemption; the key dispute was whether one shareholder's 79% ownership met the statute's 80% value test due to a possible control premium. The court held that a prior Tax Court decision for the 1976 tax year collaterally estopped the United States from relitigating whether the 80% value test was satisfied. It reasoned that the parties, facts, law, and issues were identical, and the prior case had necessarily resolved the value question against the government because the taxpayers had to prevail on both the 80% and 50% tests to win. As a result, the court did not address the underlying statutory interpretation of stock value.

taxesprocedure

The case involved plaintiff T. Clyde Stovall suing U.S. Deputy Marshals John Haynes and Jim Wellman for $100,000 in property damages, alleging they broke the glass and paneling in his back door while executing a Writ of Assistance from a bankruptcy judge on June 24, 1982. The defendants moved for summary judgment, supported by affidavits stating they did not damage the door, and the plaintiff did not provide counter-evidence despite opportunity. The court granted the motion, dismissing the case with prejudice, reasoning that the defendants were protected by absolute judicial immunity as they were performing ministerial acts executing a valid court writ, and there was no genuine issue of fact regarding the alleged damage.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

This case involved a patent infringement claim by Central Soya against Hormel regarding a method for coating and compressing meat slices to make breaded products. After liability was established in favor of the plaintiff and affirmed on appeal, the court addressed the reserved issues of damages, attorney fees, and interest. The court awarded the plaintiff lost profits based on affirmative proof of market demand, production capacity, lack of acceptable non-infringing substitutes, and detailed loss calculations, then increased the award by trebling it upon finding willful and deliberate infringement. The court also awarded reasonable attorney fees after determining the case was exceptional and granted prejudgment interest at six percent from the date of the last infringement.

business & regulatory

The case involved taxpayers John and Janet Needham seeking to enjoin IRS agents from assessing and collecting 1970 federal income taxes, based on claims that the deficiency notice was improperly sent, the six-year collection limitations period had expired, no injunction was available under Enochs v. Williams Packing Co., and Janet Needham's property interests should be protected from collection efforts against her husband. The court addressed whether the 1970 return qualified as valid under the tax code, the rules for mailing deficiency notices to the last known address, and the application of tax lien statutes to jointly owned property. It concluded that the return was not valid, the notice was properly sent, collection was not time-barred, no injunction was warranted, and Janet Needham was entitled to no relief as the lien attached only to the taxpayer's interest without levying on her homestead.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs seeking damages from the liquidators of an insolvent insurance company (SICONY) and the Small Business Administration for losses stemming from a failed construction subcontract and performance bond, including claims for completion costs and lost bonding capacity. The federal court dismissed all claims against the two liquidators and the SBA, as well as a related counterclaim, for lack of jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that under the Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act (adopted in both New York and Oklahoma), the state district court handling the ancillary liquidation proceedings has exclusive original jurisdiction over claims against the liquidators, as the matter is an in rem proceeding concerning the insurer's assets. The claim against the SBA was dismissed because it was not based on a direct third-party beneficiary right but was instead tied to contingent assets of the insolvent insurer that must be pursued through the liquidation process.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a wrongful death claim against Griffin Television, Inc. (KWTV) after its off-duty news reporter, driving his personal vehicle, struck and killed a pedestrian while allegedly intoxicated. The court addressed whether KWTV could be held liable under respondeat superior or for negligent retention, given its knowledge of the reporter's prior DUI convictions. The court granted summary judgment to KWTV, finding no genuine issue of material fact that the reporter was not acting within the course of employment at the time of the accident. It further held that any negligence in retaining the employee was not the actual or proximate cause of the death, as the employment had no connection to the incident and the employer could not have foreseen the harm to the pedestrian.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

The case involved LSB Industries, Inc. seeking disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act of five documents withheld by the IRS and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue related to a federal tax investigation of the company. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment after the IRS released most requested materials but withheld these items on privilege grounds. The court granted the defendants' motion and denied the plaintiffs', concluding that the documents were properly withheld under FOIA Exemption 5 because they were protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, and deliberative process privilege, and that one attachment also contained protected return information under 26 U.S.C. § 6103. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the Commissioner was an improper party and found the privileges applied after in camera review, even where documents contained some factual content intertwined with opinions and recommendations.

taxesprocedure

The case involved a retired serviceman suing the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for alleged negligence during a surgical procedure at a military hospital performed by a civilian consultant doctor, claiming that a nonabsorbable suture caused later kidney stone formation and that the doctor was a government employee or that staff failed to object to the technique. The court ruled in favor of the government after a non-jury trial. The core reasoning was that the doctor qualified as an independent contractor under the Act's definitions and precedents like Logue and Orleans, as the government lacked control over the detailed physical performance of the surgery, with regulations permitting civilian consultants not converting them to employees, and no separate negligence by staff.

torts & liabilityfederal power

In United States v. Barnes, the defendant moved under Rule 32(d) to withdraw his nolo contendere plea to one count of possessing an unregistered firearm, asserting that head injuries from a motorcycle accident had rendered him mentally incompetent at the time of the plea due to frequent blackouts and depersonalization episodes. The plea had been entered after a jury was empaneled, in exchange for dismissal of other counts against him and his wife, and he was subsequently sentenced to five years in prison. The court denied the motion, concluding that neither the defendant, his counsel, nor the government had raised any competency concerns before sentencing, the court had observed no signs of incompetence, and the post-sentencing allegations were conclusory and failed to create a bona fide doubt requiring a hearing or establishing manifest injustice under the rule. The court also denied related requests for appointed counsel and further extensions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an Oklahoma plaintiff, a limited partner in a California limited partnership, suing the general partner and related entities for fraud, collusion, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion of partnership assets. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that complete diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 was absent because the plaintiff's citizenship as a limited partner must be attributed to the partnership defendants. The court analyzed whether limited partnerships are treated like unincorporated associations for diversity purposes, where a member's citizenship prevents complete diversity, and reviewed conflicting circuit precedents on attributing citizenship only to general partners versus all partners. It concluded that the Tenth Circuit's precedent for unincorporated associations applies, resulting in no complete diversity and thus no federal jurisdiction.

procedurefederal power

This case involves a post-judgment discovery dispute in a patent infringement action where the plaintiff moved to compel production of 39 additional documents that the defendant had withheld on attorney-client privilege grounds. The defendant had already voluntarily produced two legal opinions from its attorneys regarding the patent's validity to support its position that any infringement was not willful. The court held that the defendant's selective disclosure of some privileged communications on the subject of the patent's validity waived the privilege as to all remaining documents in that category. The ruling rested on principles of fairness, under which a party may not disclose only self-serving privileged materials while shielding others on the same topic, drawing on precedents such as Hercules, Inc. v. Exxon Corp. and International Tel. & Tel. Corp. v. United Tel. Co. of Fla.

procedure

In Smith v. Soil Conservation Service, plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to require the defendant federal agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement before constructing one water retardation dam in a larger watershed project, asserting that the project constituted a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The court denied the injunction after an evidentiary hearing, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits because the agencies' negative determination was reasonable and supported by evidence of limited impacts such as the loss of about 150 trees and vegetation on roughly 100 acres. The court further found no irreparable injury to the plaintiffs and determined that the public interest favored allowing the project to proceed to protect approximately 12,000 acres of farmland from flooding.

environmentprocedure

This case is a garnishment action by plaintiff Tipton against MFA Insurance Company to recover proceeds from a homeowner’s insurance policy issued to judgment debtor Shirley Pike, in order to satisfy a state court judgment for personal injuries and medical expenses totaling over $26,000. The underlying injury occurred when an explosion and flash fire from an automobile (subject to registration and not in dead storage) injured the plaintiff while the insured’s son performed engine work in the driveway. The court decided that MFA is not liable under the policy. It reasoned that the policy’s exclusion for bodily injury arising out of motor vehicle ownership, maintenance, or use applies here, that an exception clause located within the separate watercraft exclusion paragraph does not modify the motor vehicle provision, and that the contract must be read as a whole according to its plain and unambiguous meaning.

torts & liability

The case involves a negligence action by a roofing employee who fell through an unguarded opening in the roof of a General Motors plant under construction in 1978, seeking damages from the general contractor and subcontractors allegedly responsible for the hazardous condition. Defendant Inryco moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a) to implead subcontractor Derr Construction Co. as a third-party defendant, asserting a right to indemnity under the subcontract and common law. The court granted the motion, holding that the proposed third-party claim satisfied Rule 14(a) because Derr's potential liability was derivative of and dependent on the plaintiff's claim against Inryco, and impleader would reduce multiplicity of litigation.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a motion by defendants, university athletic administrators, seeking attorneys' fees and expenses incurred on appeal under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 after prevailing in a lawsuit brought by former basketball players under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The underlying suit alleged that the defendants violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment free speech rights and due process rights by recommending nonrenewal of their athletic scholarships in response to critical public remarks about the coaching staff. The district court had granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the defendants, which the Tenth Circuit affirmed. The court denied the motion for appellate fees, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to amend or alter the appellate judgment, which was silent on fees, and that only the Court of Appeals could make such changes. Alternatively, the court found that even if it had authority, the appeal was not frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation under the standard from Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC.

civil rightsfree speechprocedure

In this bankruptcy case, Sentinel Bonding Agency filed for Chapter 11 reorganization after being sued in California federal court by Surety Insurance Company over contract and fraud claims, triggering an automatic stay on that litigation. The bankruptcy court lifted the stay to permit the California case to proceed against both Sentinel and its principal and abstained from hearing parallel adversary proceedings removed to Oklahoma bankruptcy court. Sentinel sought leave to appeal the order to the district court, arguing the Oklahoma forum was more convenient. The district court held that the abstention ruling was unreviewable but the stay relief was appealable, then denied leave because the bankruptcy court had acted within its discretion to avoid duplicative proceedings in separate courts.

procedurebusiness & regulatory