By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 29, September 2017

U.S. v. Robinson, et al., Nos. 15-4095/4100/4124 (ROGERS, Gibbons, Donald).

U.S. v. Robinson, et al., Nos. 15-4095/4100/4124 (ROGERS, Gibbons, Donald). Three African-Americans were convicted of offenses arising out of a kickback scheme. During jury deliberations, the jury notified the court a couple times that it did not feel it would be able to come to an agreement, and the court responded with an Allen charge and instructed the jury to continue deliberating. After the jury found the defendants guilty—and against the court’s no-contact order—one of the defendant’s attorneys contacted the… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 29, September 2017

Island Fork Construction v. Bowling, No. 16-4319 (STRANCH, Moore, Donald).

Island Fork Construction v. Bowling, No. 16-4319 (STRANCH, Moore, Donald). Bowling worked as a coal miner for over 29 years, and applied for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. His most recent employer denied that it was responsible for paying the benefits, and the matter went before an administrative law judge. At that point, the employer informed the judge that it and its insurer were both insolvent. There is no mechanism by which an ALJ can designate a different… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 27, September 2017

U.S. v. Verwiebe, No. 16-2591 (SUTTON, Clay, Rogers).

U.S. v. Verwiebe, No. 16-2591 (SUTTON, Clay, Rogers). The defendant pleaded guilty to assaulting a federal officer with a dangerous weapon and was sentenced as a career offender under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1 based on the defendant’s prior convictions for assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm (pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3)) and assault resulting in serious bodily injury (pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6)). The issue on appeal was whether each crime… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 25, September 2017

Doe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 16-4693 (GRIFFIN, Clay, Thapar).

Doe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 16-4693 (GRIFFIN, Clay, Thapar). A male graduate student at the University of Cincinnati (UC) was accused by a female student of sexual assault, which he denied. UC held a disciplinary hearing, but the accusing student failed to attend. Nevertheless, UC suspended the graduate student based on the hearsay testimony the female student gave to investigators. The graduate student appealed his suspension to the district court, arguing that the complete denial of his right to… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 22, September 2017

UAW v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., No. 15-2285 (GIBBONS) (concurring opinion to denial of rehearing en banc), (SUTTON) (concurring opinion to denial of rehearing en banc), (GRIFFIN, Gilman) (dissenting opinion to denial of rehearing en banc).

UAW v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., No. 15-2285 (GIBBONS) (concurring opinion to denial of rehearing en banc), (SUTTON) (concurring opinion to denial of rehearing en banc), (GRIFFIN, Gilman) (dissenting opinion to denial of rehearing en banc). This is one of three cases revolving around a disagreement about the benefits conferred by a collective bargaining agreement, which came to differing results although they were factually similar. The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc, and Judges Gibbons, Sutton, and Griffin filed… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 20, September 2017

Giasson Aerospace Sci. Inc., et al. v. RCO Eng’g Inc., No. 16-1769 (GRIFFIN, Norris, Suhrheinrich).

Giasson Aerospace Sci. Inc., et al. v. RCO Eng’g Inc., No. 16-1769 (GRIFFIN, Norris, Suhrheinrich). Giasson and RCO were in business together, trying to secure a contract to sell airline seats to a luxury jet manufacturer. Giasson sued RCO after RCO allegedly cut Giasson out of the deal, and the parties settled for a fixed amount, determined in part on RCO’s estimation of its gross sales price per seat. After settlement, Giasson learned that RCO had increased its gross sales… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 20, September 2017

U.S. v. $31,000.00, et al., No. 16-4279 (BATCHELDER, Cole, Moore).

U.S. v. $31,000.00, et al., No. 16-4279 (BATCHELDER, Cole, Moore). A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) search of two men at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport revealed that each were carrying tens of thousands of dollars in cash, which the men claimed to own but about which they could not provide details. After a drug dog alerted to the scent of drugs on each man’s cash, the DEA seized the money and the government filed for forfeiture of the cash. Both men… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 20, September 2017

Islamic Center of Nashville v. State of Tennessee, et al., No. 17-5045 (MOORE, Merritt, Rogers).

Islamic Center of Nashville v. State of Tennessee, et al., No. 17-5045 (MOORE, Merritt, Rogers). An Islamic Center filed suit in federal court, alleging constitutional, federal statutory, and state statutory claims that it alleged relieved it of its obligation to pay a property tax assessed against it during the time period the property was legally owned by a bank pursuant to an ijara agreement. In an ijaraagreement, a financial institution purchases an asset, retains title, and then leases it to… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 20, September 2017

Richmond v. Huq, et al., No. 16-2560 (DONALD, Moore, Stranch).

Richmond v. Huq, et al., No. 16-2560 (DONALD, Moore, Stranch). The plaintiff sued a number of defendants, alleging that while she was incarcerated she received constitutionally inadequate treatment for a self-inflicted burn wound and that she was unconstitutionally deprived of her psychiatric medication for over two weeks, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants because the plaintiff had failed to show a constitutional violation. The plaintiff appealed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary… Read more

By: Carrie Bennice / Date: 20, September 2017

In re Conzelmann, No. 17-3270 (Gibbons, Sutton, Thapar).

In re Conzelmann, No. 17-3270 (Gibbons, Sutton, Thapar). The petitioner is a federal prisoner seeking leave to file a successive collateral attack on his sentence as a career offender. He argues that he should not have been classified as a career offender because his prior conviction for possessing chemicals to manufacture drugs no longer qualifies as a predicate conviction for career offender purposes after Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016). A second or successive collateral attack is… Read more