Sixth Circuit Cases

A Modest Proposal

One reader made a very useful and valid comment.  The table of weekly decisions would be much more useful if there was a small digest of the decision or at least a "key word description" of the contents.

Excellent point, but I do not have the time or the resources to effect that change.

Howeve, here is a thought.  Each week there are an average of 10 published decisions.

If we could get a pool of fifteen lawyers all agreeing to punch in the key word or words for ONE DECISION PER WEEK, then this 'salami technique' would enable a free but valuable resource to be developed.

How would it work?

First, the lawyer volunteer must be marginally computer literate, legally competent, and a minimal typist.

Second, each lawyer would be assigned a number.

Third, each week the grid of decisions would be emailed to the band of blawgers who would quickly open the decision matching their number, digest it to a key word or two (eg., Criminal: Search and Seizure or Civil Rights  or Insurance Law: Exclusions, etc).

Fourth, the lawyer would then access the "draft page" at www. SixthCircuitCases.com, and count down to their number and type in the few word description.

For example, if your number was "seven", then each week you would have the seventh decision from the top to drop in your key word!

Hopefully, this can be done in just a few minutes by each attorney within a few days.  When all have been 'keyed' in, then the post will be published.

If I get 15 volunteers, then I will do it.  If not, then the 'keyless' table will continue.

The numbers would be redrawn every three months to further divide the workload, since the last half of the group might get several 'byes' over the weeks.

Michael Stevens

6th Cir. Published Decisions for Nov 20-24, 2006

Opinion	Pub Date	Short Title/District
06a0427p.06	2006/11/20	USA v. Gale     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus Criminal Sentencing
06a0428p.06	2006/11/20	Higgins v. Renico     Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City Conditional Habeas Corpus granted
06a0429p.06	2006/11/20	USA v. Magouirk     Eastern District of Tennessee at Winchester Criminal: Sentencing
06a0430p.06	2006/11/21	USA v. Portela     Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville Criminal:L Sentencing
06a0431p.06	2006/11/21	Vanguard Fire v. NLRB     State of Michigan Agency Labor Law:  Withdrawing recognition
06a0432p.06	2006/11/22	Ford v. Wilder Western District of Tennessee at Memphis Elections:  Jurisdiction and atty fees
06a0433p.06	2006/11/22	Bank of New York v. Janowick Western District of Kentucky at Owensboro Insurance: Interpleader for money found during reorganization KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. When an insurance company’s reorganization yields a pot of money that no one expected or even envisioned, who receives the proceeds? In short, that is the issue this case requires the court to resolve. Bank of New York (“BNY”) filed this interpleader action to resolve conflicting claims to stock it received from Prudential Insurance Company of America’s demutualization, i.e., its reorganization from a mutual insurance company to a stock company. BNY received the stock as successor-in-interest to the former trustee of the National-Southwire Aluminum Company (“NSA”) Pension Plan (“NSA Plan” or “Plan”). The Plan terminated in 1986, and the trustee used the Plan’s assets to purchase two group annuity contracts, which satisfied the Plan’s ERISA obligations to the employees. The claimants to the stock are a class of employees (“Employees”) of the now-defunct NSA (represented by Defendants-Appellants Janowick, Erwin, and Kannapel), Defendant-Appellee Southwire Company (“Southwire”) (the parent company of the former NSA), and Defendant-Appellant Century Aluminum Company (“Century”) (the purchaser of the former NSA’s assets). The district court addressed the claims in two phases, first concluding via summary judgment that Southwire’s claims were superior to those of the Employees, and next concluding that Southwire’s claims trumped Century’s. The Employees and Century both appeal. Regarding the Employees’ appeal, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Southwire, as we conclude that both Kentucky law and the nature of demutualization compel the conclusion that the Employees are entitled to the proceeds, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. As to Century’s appeal, we VACATE the district court’s judgment and DISMISS Century’s appeal as moot, as we conclude that Century could not have purchased from Southwire that which Southwire never owned.
06a0434p.06	2006/11/22	Scarbrough v. Morgan Cnty Bd Ed     Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville Specifically, he claims that when the Board  enied him  the position of Director of  schools, it was retaliating against him for exercising his First Amendment freedoms and treating him differently than similarly situated  applicants based only upon their animus toward homosexuals.

6th Cir. Published Decisions for Nov 13-17, 2006

Opinion	Pub Date	Short Title/District
06a0419p.06	2006/11/13	Cinti Women's Serv v. Voinovich     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati Abortions
06a0420p.06	2006/11/13	Hughes v. Sanders     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus Bankruptcy: Discharge (judgment)
06a0421p.06	2006/11/14 CRIMINAL	USA v. Watford Western District of Kentucky at Louisville Criminal HAROLD A. ACKERMAN, Senior District Judge. Defendant-Appellant Marlon L. Watford appeals from the District Court’s judgment of conviction and sentence following a jury’s guilty verdicts on counts of narcotics and firearm possession. Watford, through his able counsel, contends that the District Court erred in several critical respects by allowing this case to proceed to trial after a lengthy pretrial delay during which the Government filed three superseding indictments. He also asserts that the District Court erred in its handling of voir dire and several sentencing-related issues. Having carefully considered Watford’s arguments in light of the record submitted on appeal, we find no reversible error in the District Court’s adjudication of this case. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM.
06a0422a.06	2006/11/15	USA v. Seymour     Western District of Michigan at Marquette Evidence: KRE 403 (prior sexual molestations)
06a0423p.06	2006/11/15	USA v. Ganier     Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville Criminal: FRCP 16(a)(1)(G) expert disclosures.
06a0424p.06	2006/11/16	Berri v. Gonzales     Board of Immigration Appeals Immigration
06a0425p.06	2006/11/16	USA v. Ely     Western District of Tennessee at Memphis Crimimal: Forfeitures, drug case
06a0426p.06	2006/11/16	Henderson v. Walled Lake     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit Sexual Harassment, school, cheerleaders

6th Cir. Published Decisions for Nov 6 -10, 2006

Opinion	Pub Date	Short Title/District
06a0412p.06	2006/11/06	USA v. Armstead     Western District of Tennessee at Memphis
06a0413p.06	2006/11/07	In re: 5900 Assoc v.     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
06a0414p.06	2006/11/07	USA v. Hynes     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
06a0415p.06	2006/11/09	Rittenberry v. Morgan     Middle District of Tennessee at Cookeville
06a0416p.06	2006/11/09	USA v. Garrido     Western District of Kentucky at Bowling Green
06a0417p.06	2006/11/09	Stewart v. Wolfenbarger     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
06a0418p.06	2006/11/09	Joseph v. Coyle     Northern District of Ohio

6th Cir. Published Decisions for Oct. 30 - Nov. 3, 2006

Opinion	Pub Date	Short Title/District
06a0400p.06	2006/10/30	Tritent Intl Corp v. Comwlth of KY     Eastern District of Kentucky at Frankfort
06a0401p.06	2006/10/30	USA v. Jackson     Western District of Tennessee at Memphis
06a0402p.06	2006/10/30	United Steelworkers v. Saint-Gobain Ceramic     Western District of Kentucky at Louisville
06a0403p.06	2006/10/31	Patterson v. Haskins     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus
06a0404p.06	2006/10/31	USA v. Johnson     Western District of Tennessee at Jackson
06a0405p.06	2006/10/31	EEOC v. Jefferson Cnty     Western District of Kentucky at Louisville
06a0406p.06	2006/10/31	NE OH Coalition v. Blackwell     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus
06a0406p.06	2006/10/31	NE OH Coalition v. Blackwell     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus
06a0407p.06	2006/11/01	Slaughter v. Parker     Western District of Kentucky at Louisville
06a0408p.06	2006/11/02	Solomon v. USA     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
06a0409p.06	2006/11/02	USA v. Triana     Northern District of Ohio
06a0410p.06	2006/11/02	Amir v. Gonzales     Board of Immigration Appeals

6th Cir: Published Decisions for Oct. 23-27, 2006

Opinion	Pub Date	Short Title/District
06a0389p.06	2006/10/24	Ramaj v. Gonzales     Board of Immigration Appeals
06a0390p.06	2006/10/24	EEOC v. Sundance Rehab Corp     Northern District of Ohio
06a0391p.06	2006/10/24	Adika v. Smith     Western District of Kentucky at Louisville
06a0392p.06	2006/10/24	Moross Ltd v. Fleckenstein Cap Inc     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
06a0392p.06	2006/10/24	Moross Ltd v. Fleckenstein Cap Inc     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
06a0393p.06	2006/10/25	GMC v. Lanard Toys Inc     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
06a0394p.06	2006/10/25	House v. Bell     Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville
06a0395p.06	2006/10/25	Nicholson v. Warren     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
06b0007p.06	2006/10/25	In re: Alan Raynard v.     Western District of Michigan at Marquette
06a0396p.06	2006/10/26	Williams v. Haviland     Northern District of Ohio
06a0397p.06	2006/10/27	Bergman v. Frey     Northern District of Ohio
06a0398p.06	2006/10/27	Dozier v. Sun Life Assurance     Eastern District of Kentucky at London
06a0399p.06	2006/10/27	USA v. Seymour     Western District of Michigan at Marquette
06a0411p.06	2006/10/23	USA v. Haynes     Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville