Edward William Day

Dr. Harry M. Kechijian, a physician, sued the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare and Blue Shield to recover over $27,000 in Medicare Part B payments that had been withheld as a set-off for alleged overutilization and misutilization of services identified by a state peer review committee. The court analyzed potential sources of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that neither the Administrative Procedure Act nor the Medicare Act itself authorizes judicial review of Part B benefit determinations and that no colorable constitutional claim was presented. It further held that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies despite being notified of review procedures. The court therefore dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction and non-exhaustion of remedies.

healthcareprocedure

This case is an admiralty action commenced in 1970 by the plaintiff to recover damages for breach of a charter party contract. After confirming an arbitration award on liability in 1976 and appointing a master to calculate damages in 1977, the defendants filed extensive discovery requests in May 1978. The plaintiff moved for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The court granted the motion, finding the requests untimely after nearly eight years of litigation, not previously sought by defendants, likely to delay the master's hearings, and unduly burdensome when only a ministerial damages calculation remained.

procedure

The case French v. Wilson involved a dispute over whether the rescission provisions of the Truth in Lending Act applied to an October 1973 loan from Warwick Credit Union to the plaintiffs, secured by a mortgage on their preexisting home and land after the home was moved to a new lot. The plaintiffs gave notice of rescission in 1975, but the credit union did not respond or provide required disclosures. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, holding that the Act and Regulation Z applied to the transaction. The core reasoning was that exceptions to the right of rescission for loans financing acquisition of a new dwelling or initial construction did not apply because the home was already owned by the plaintiffs and had existed for many years, and the lender failed to notify them of their rescission rights.

business & regulatory

This case involves a civil action by the executors of Howard W. Holmes' estate against a corporation, its directors Bateson and Bronson, and Combustion Engineering, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as state-law fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, arising from the defendants' purchase of the estate's corporate shares and partnership interest following Holmes' death in 1969. The court had previously found liability and awarded damages on both the federal and state claims. In this opinion, the court modifies its prior ruling to impose prejudgment interest at eight percent per annum from January 6, 1970, on the non-federal claims, holding that Rhode Island's prejudgment interest statute is procedural and remedial in nature and thus applies to pending actions. The court exercises its discretion to award the same interest rate on the federal claims as fair and equitable under the circumstances.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case concerns a construction subcontract dispute arising from the erection of steel roof deck and siding at the Providence Civic Center project. Northway Decking & Sheet Metal Corporation sued Inland-Ryerson Construction Products Company for breach of contract and compensation for alleged extra work performed without written authorization, while also claiming tortious interference against Dimeo Construction Company; cross-claims and counterclaims were also filed. After denying a preliminary injunction for removal of scaffolding, the court held a trial on damages claims under diversity jurisdiction and made findings of fact about project schedules, the failure to communicate timelines to Northway, the terms requiring written change orders for alterations or extras, and the events leading to Northway being removed from the job in favor of another erector. The court's reasoning focused on the subcontract provisions mandating written documentation for changes and compensation, the lack of evidence that schedules were finalized or communicated in advance, and whether termination was justified under the contract terms.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

In Textron, Inc. v. United States, the plaintiff sought a refund of over $3.7 million in federal income taxes paid for 1959 after claiming deductions for worthless stock in and debts owed by its wholly owned subsidiary, Hawaiian Textron, which had operated a reconditioned passenger ship that incurred heavy losses and was foreclosed upon by the Maritime Administration. The court ruled in favor of Textron, granting the refund plus interest. The core reasoning was that a parent corporation and its subsidiary are separate taxable entities under the tax system, so Textron's loss on its investment was distinct from the subsidiary's operating losses, and the government's argument against allowing separate deductions for the two entities had no merit.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a retail food store owner challenging a six-month suspension from the federal Food Stamp Program imposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture after the store accepted food stamps for ineligible non-food items such as cleaner, baby powder, disinfectant, shampoo, and toothpaste. The plaintiff sought judicial review under 7 U.S.C. § 2022, arguing that the violations were excusable due to inadequate prior compliance warnings and that the sanction was unwarranted. The court granted summary judgment for the government, finding that the violations were clearly established by evidence, a compliance visit had occurred, and the six-month disqualification fell within the permitted regulatory range of up to three years. The court further held that it lacked authority to modify the sanction absent proof of arbitrary or capricious action by the agency, which was not shown.

business & regulatory

This case involved an appeal by Liberty Loan Corporation from a bankruptcy court decision awarding the trustee $1,000 in damages and $1,700 in attorney's fees on a counterclaim alleging violations of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (Truth-in-Lending) in a 1974 consumer loan agreement with bankrupt Robert Dunne. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy judge's rulings that the bankrupt's Truth-in-Lending cause of action passed to the trustee under sections 70a(5) and 70a(6) of the Bankruptcy Act, that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over the counterclaim because the plaintiff waived any objection, that the lender violated the Act by failing to properly disclose the security interest, consolidate disclosures, and state the amount of credit actually usable by the borrower, and that the attorney's fee award was authorized and reasonable under the statute. The core reasoning was that the action arose from the loan contract and aligned with the purposes of both the Bankruptcy Act and consumer protection laws, similar to usury claims, with fees mandated to encourage enforcement of disclosure requirements.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

This case involves a management association seeking to vacate an arbitration award that required payment of wage and benefit increases under a 1973-74 collective bargaining agreement with a sheet metal workers' union local. The increases had been conditioned on approval by the Construction Industry Stabilization Committee, which denied authorization due to wage controls that later expired; the union then pursued arbitration over payments for May and June 1974 after the association refused. The court upheld the award, finding that the arbitrators acted within their authority under the agreement's grievance procedures to resolve the dispute and grant appropriate relief without manifest disregard of law or the terms of the submission.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved motions to quash eighteen grand jury subpoenas on the grounds that special attorney S. Michael Levin lacked authority to apply for them under 28 U.S.C. § 515(a). The court first held that the movants had standing to challenge the subpoenas because they questioned the official's legal authority rather than seeking suppression of evidence. It then analyzed the appointment process and determined that Deputy Attorney General Kleindienst was authorized to appoint Levin, that the May 20, 1971 commission letter met the statute's specificity requirements by referencing particular statutes and matters, and that the ongoing investigation fell within the scope of that authority, leading to denial of the motions.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

The case concerned a corporation's motion to quash two federal grand jury subpoenas duces tecum issued in March 1975 that sought bank statements, canceled checks, invoices, and other supporting financial records from 1970 through 1973. The movants argued the subpoenas were overbroad and lacked shown relevance, were repetitious of prior voluntary productions to IRS agents, and would be oppressive by interfering with ongoing litigation. The court applied a three-part test for reasonableness—requiring relevance to the grand jury's investigation, specification with reasonable particularity, and coverage of only a reasonable time period—while noting a presumption of regularity attaches to grand jury subpoenas and considering factors like the government's good-faith assistance and limited existing possession of copies. It concluded the subpoenas satisfied the standards and were not invalid on the asserted grounds.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a class action brought by inmates at Rhode Island's Adult Correctional Institutions challenging prison disciplinary procedures. The plaintiffs alleged that the denial of counsel and use-immunity at disciplinary hearings—when the underlying conduct could also lead to state criminal charges—violated their rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The court held that such inmates are entitled to the assistance of counsel at the hearings and that any testimony given without counsel cannot be used against them in subsequent criminal proceedings. It granted declaratory and injunctive relief requiring counsel in these circumstances, relying on precedents such as Wolff v. McDonnell and Palmigiano v. Baxter that link the right to counsel to the potential for criminal prosecution.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case was a diversity jurisdiction products liability action in which Rhode Island plaintiffs sought damages for a stroke allegedly caused by the defendant's contraceptive pills, asserting claims for breach of implied warranty, negligence, res ipsa loquitur, and strict liability in tort. Following a thirty-day jury trial, verdicts were returned for the plaintiffs in the amounts of $500,000 for Sandra Oresman and $15,000 for her former husband. The court denied the defendant's post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial, concluding that the verdicts were supported by the evidence and that pre-judgment interest was properly included under Rhode Island law. It granted a partial remittitur on the husband's award, limiting recovery to the medical expenses he had actually incurred prior to the divorce.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

The case involved the U.S. government seeking to set aside Falstaff Brewing Corporation's acquisition of Narragansett Brewing Company under Section 7 of the Clayton Act on the ground that it eliminated substantial potential competition in the New England beer market. After a trial and Supreme Court remand for reassessment of Falstaff as an on-the-fringe potential competitor, the district court found that Falstaff was not a potential entrant into the market except by acquiring Narragansett and that the acquisition did not probably lead to a substantial lessening of competition. The court based this on stipulated concentration figures showing increased market shares by leading sellers alongside evidence of competitive conditions, including stable prices despite rising costs, varying shares among top firms, technological innovation, and lack of any perception by market participants that Falstaff was a potential entrant. No additional evidence of deviation from competitive norms was presented, leading to judgment for the defendant.

business & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff Veronica Fisher sued Beneficial Finance Company over a $320.70 loan, alleging violations of the federal Truth-in-Lending Act due to inadequate disclosures on default charges and insurance options in the loan documents, and also violations of Rhode Island's Small Loan Business Act. The court addressed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on multiple issues regarding compliance with disclosure requirements under 15 U.S.C. § 1639 and Regulation Z, as well as state law provisions on finance charges and insurance. The court ruled that the defendant's disclosure forms satisfied most requirements, including that insurance was voluntary and that no default charges needed disclosure since none were applicable, while noting that some state law claims could proceed to trial. It granted partial summary judgment to the defendant on several counts but allowed potential further proof on whether insurance was required in practice.

business & regulatory

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by a prisoner serving a life sentence for a 1970 Rhode Island first-degree murder conviction. The petitioner claimed that certain confessions admitted at trial violated his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, were obtained without required Escobedo warnings, were derivative fruits of prior illegal interrogations, and were made when he lacked mental competency. The court reviewed the state trial and appellate records and denied the petition, concluding that the state courts had fairly addressed the admissibility of the confessions (including one made to the petitioner's mother), properly rejected claims of taint from earlier statements, and correctly determined the petitioner's competency based on the evidence presented. The decision emphasized that the issues had been adequately litigated in prior proceedings and did not warrant federal relief or a new hearing.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involved a lawsuit by a ten-year-old girl and her father against a local Little League organization and city officials, alleging that the league's exclusion of the girl from baseball teams solely due to her sex violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, with state action claimed through the provision and maintenance of public parks and school facilities. The court found that the league's rule barring girls ages eight to twelve from participating was constitutional. It reasoned that baseball is a contact sport involving potential violent collisions and that documented physical differences in strength, structure, and reaction time between boys and girls of that age created a substantial risk of serious injury to female participants, making the sex-based classification rationally related to the legitimate goal of safety. The court distinguished contrary precedents involving non-contact sports and entered judgment for the defendants.

civil rights

This case is a private antitrust suit brought by Lang's Bowlarama, a Rhode Island bowling center, against AMF Incorporated, a bowling equipment supplier, and League Bowling Corporation, a competing bowling center, alleging violations of the Robinson-Patman Act through discriminatory credit terms, sales prices, and promotional arrangements favoring the competitor. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting no genuine issues of material fact and no legal violations. The court granted the motion as to the claim of discriminatory debt retirement but denied it as to claims involving the sale of bowling balls and co-sponsorship of a tournament, finding unresolved factual disputes on whether the plaintiff had a practical opportunity to obtain the same benefits. The decision rests on the requirement that summary judgment is inappropriate in antitrust cases where significant probative evidence supports the plaintiff's remaining claims and the record shows material facts in dispute.

business & regulatory

This case involves the SEC seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against five defendants for alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleged that the defendants offered and sold certificates of beneficial interest in Rhode Island trusts, as well as scotch whisky warehouse receipts, without registering them, using the mails and interstate commerce in the process. The court reviewed evidence of advertisements, fund transfers to a Florida company, and the structure of the investments, analyzing whether they qualified as securities under the statutes and whether registration or antifraud rules like Rule 10b-5 were violated.

business & regulatory

This case involves disputes over an alleged but unfulfilled charter party for the vessel M/S North Breeze, with Global Maritime Leasing Panama, Inc. seeking damages for breach under admiralty jurisdiction and Peraco Chartering Corporation seeking unpaid commissions under diversity jurisdiction. The defendant moved to compel arbitration of Global's claim and to stay both actions, along with motions to vacate the ship's arrest and attachment, while the plaintiffs sought partial or full summary judgment. The court granted the motions to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in both cases pending completion of arbitration. The core reasoning was that the telex negotiations reflected an agreement to arbitrate disputes over contract formation, the court possessed inherent authority to stay related litigation to prevent duplication of the key issue, the defendant was prepared to arbitrate promptly without causing delay, and no prejudice to Peraco was shown.

business & regulatoryprocedure