| Date |
Name |
Description |
| January 11, 2006 |
Larry D. Davies and Ruth Ann Davies v. Mike Johanes
and United States Department of Agriculture
05-6009-CV-W-ODS |
In connection with certain forms of restructuring
farmers' debts, the Department of Agriculture ("USDA")
enters into shared appreciation agreements, which require
farmers to pay the USDA a percentage of the property's
appreciation over a specified term. The Court holds
that (1) regulations governing appraisals of property
enacted in 2002 require a different method than was
required by the regulations in existence in 1992, and
(2) the USDA is obligated to apply the same appraisal
method at the end of the agreement as was used at the
beginning. |
| February 24, 2005 |
Danny E. Garrett
v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp., et al., 05-0068-CV-W-ODS
|
The Court remanded the case to the Circuit Court of
Jackson County, Missouri, because a reasonable basis
existed for predicting that the Missouri Supreme Court
might impose individual liability against a supervisory
employee under the Missouri Human Rights Act. |
| August 23, 2004 |
Vernon
Tice, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, vs. NovaStar Financial, Inc., Case No. 04-0330-CV-W-ODS |
Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act, the Court appointed an institutional investor and
two individual investors as co-lead plaintiffs and approved
their choice of counsel in the putative class action
against NovaStar seeking damages for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act. |
| July 20, 2004 |
West Platte
R-II School District vs. Judi Wilson, by and on behalf
of her son, L.W., Case No. 04-6040-CV-SJ-ODS |
Order finding that the administrative due process
panel's decision in favor of the student and his parents
was equivalent to an agreement between the state and
the parents, thus representing the student's current
education placement for purposes of the "stay put" provision
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
|
| 08/29/2003 |
United
States of America v. Jacqueline Fenimore, #98-00018-04-CR-W-ODS |
Summary:Order rejecting Defendant's challenge to the
reliability of the sweat patch and finding that the
sweat patch is reliable evidence that a person used
illegal drugs, absent a showing of outside contamination
or that the sweat patch was not properly applied and
removed. |
| 08/05/2003 |
Georgia Hayes
v. Pharmacists Mutual Insurance Co.,
#03-0491-CV-W-ODS
|
Judge Smith held that garnishment proceeding following
judgment against tortfeasor does not constitute a "direct
action" against the insurer within the meaning
of 28 U.S.C. sec. 1332(c)(1), so the insurer did not
assume the tortfeasor's state of citizenship for diversity
purposes. Judge Smith further held that the garnishment
proceeding became removable when the Writ of Garnishment
was served, so a Notice of Removal filed more than thirty
days after that date was untimely.
|
| 04/14/2003 |
Eugene Frye,
et al., v. Police Department of Kansas City, Missouri,
et al., #02-0253-CV-W-ODS
|
Police officers who arrest abortion protestors for
interfering with traffic entitled to qualified immunity
even though protestors were not actually in the street,
where record demonstrated that the protestors were distracting
drivers and causing them to brake suddenly and swerve,
and where officers first gave protestors the option
of moving to a different location or not displaying
the distracting signs to oncoming drivers. |
| 04/14/2003 |
Grant
Gunderson v. Lori A. Gunderson and John Allinder, #02-1078-CV-W-ODS |
Order holding that 18 U.S.C. § 2520, which creates
civil liability for those who wiretap conversations
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511, does not apply
to a defendant who procures another party to wiretap
conversations in violation of the statute.
|
| 03/26/2003 |
Tina L. Manlove
v. United States Postal Service, #01-0620-CV-W-ODS |
Order holding (1) Title VII does not provide a private
right of action based on sexual orientation, (2) a prima
facie case of gender discrimination was not established
because similarly situated employee, who was also a
member of the same protected class, was promoted, and
(3) a prima facie case of race discrimination was not
established because denial of training is not an adverse
employment action. |
| 01/16/2003 |
Lamoni K.
Riordan v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints d/b/a Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints., #02-0296-CV-W-ODS
|
Order holding that an employee's child was not barred
by the doctrine of parental immunity and can maintain
a cause of action against his father's employer under
the doctrine of respondeat superior. |
| 12/5/2002 |
United States
of America v. Robert Ray Courtney, Case # 01-00253-CR-ODS
|
Order specifying reasons for upward departure from
the Sentencing Guidelines. |
| 5/28/2002 |
Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission v. New Prime, Inc.,
#02-3072 |
When the EEOC requests documents relevant
to the charge under investigation, complies with the
procedural requirements for giving notice of the charge,
and acts within its authority and in good faith, the
EEOC's subpeona duces tecum will be enforced. |
| 10/17/2001 |
McCleary,
et al. v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., et al. |
When there is more than one way to properly
align the parties, District Court should defer to alignment
chosen by plaintiff and refrain from realigning them
in a manner that defeats subject matter jurisdiction. |
| 05/21/2001 |
Liberty
Mutual Insurance Co. v. FAG Bearings Corp., #99-5017-CV-SW |
Judge Smith held that insurer was collaterally
estopped from relitigating cause of environmental contamination
when the issue had been decided in prior declaratory
judgment action between insurer and insured. This was
so even though insured allegedly possessed new information
demonstrating the true cause of the contamination.
Judge Smith further held that even if the new evidence
was considered, it would not alter the determination
that the releases of contaminant were not "sudden
and accidental" and thereby excluded from coverage.
This was so because the allegedly new information demonstrated
that while the insured did not specifically intend to
contaminate the environment, it purposely cut open a
pipe known to have contained contaminant and allowed
it to drain onto the ground for an extended period of
time. |
| 03/01/2001 |
Lang
vs. KCP&L |
Order denying certification of a class
to raise a variety of claims of discrimination. |
