Justia U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Derek Braswell suffered a horrific workplace accident: while operating a press brake manufactured by Cincinnati, Inc., his right arm was crushed, and eventually had to be amputated. Despite warnings, Braswell reached into the die area to remove a jammed piece of metal. The machine's safety equipment designed to prevent this type of accident had been removed or disabled sometime prior to the accident. After his injury, Braswell filed a suit against Cincinnati on theories of strict products liability and negligence. The district court granted summary judgment for Cincinnati on the grounds that a subsequent owner had modified the press brake to create the danger and that the gated pedal on the original model made the press brake not unreasonably dangerous. The Tenth Circuit agreed that the press brake was not unreasonably dangerous: with its warnings and safety devices, the machine did not pose a danger beyond that which the ordinary operator of the machine would appreciate. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Braswell v. Cincinnati Incorporated, et al" on Justia Law

Novell, Inc. filed suit against Microsoft Corporation, alleging anti-trust violations. The matter went to trial in 2011, ending in deadlock. The district court concluded Microsoft's conduct did not offend section 2 of the Sherman Act, and entered judgment as a matter of law. Novell appealed to the Tenth Circuit, arguing that Microsoft refused to share its intellectual property with rivals after first promising to do so. The Tenth Circuit concluded after its review that Novell presented no evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that Microsoft's discontinuation of this arrangement suggested a "willingness to sacrifice short-term profits, […] in a manner that was irrational but for its tendency to harm competition." View "Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation" on Justia Law

Debtor-Appellant Market Center East Retail Property, Inc. appealed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's affirming of the bankruptcy court's award of attorney's fees to Appellees Barak Lurie and his firm, Lurie & Park. Lurie was Market Center’s attorney in completing the sale of a retail shopping center to Lowe’s Home Center. Market Center argued: (1) the bankruptcy court erred in calculating the amount of attorney’s fees because the bankruptcy court should have used the lodestar approach in its calculations; (2) that the 11 U.S.C. 330(a)(3) factors were an exhaustive list of factors that the bankruptcy court was required to consider; and (3) that Congress intended 11 U.S.C. 330(a) to be construed consistently with case law for awarding attorney's fees under federal fee-shifting statutes such as 42 U.S.C. 1988. While the Tenth Circuit did not agree with Market Center in all regards, the Court nonetheless reversed and remanded for reconsideration of the fees. View "Market Center East Retail Prop, et al v. Lurie, et al" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of using fire to commit a felony, and two counts of arson. He was sentenced to 430 months’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing among other things, that the sentence violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Finding no abuse of the trial court’s discretion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Tolliver" on Justia Law

The federal government moved the Osage Nation to the State of Oklahoma. Years later, the Nation discovered its new home contained mammoth reserves of oil and gas. The federal government appropriated itself as trustee, to oversee collection of royalty income and its distribution to tribal members. In this lawsuit, tribal members sought an accounting to determine whether the federal government fulfilled its fiduciary obligations. The district court dismissed the tribal members’ claims. Upon review of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit found the tribe was entitled to an accounting, and accordingly reversed. View "Fletcher, et al v. United States, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant Rocky Eugene Dodd was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder in Oklahoma state court and received two death sentences. Defendant made an 28 U.S.C. 2254 application for relief at the federal district court; all fifteen claims in his application were denied. He appealed the denial of four claims: (1) that the evidence of guilt was insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) that the trial court denied him the rights to present a complete defense and confront witnesses when it excluded evidence that somebody else had committed the murders; (3) that prosecutorial misconduct denied him a fair trial; and (4) that testimony by the victims’ relatives recommending the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The Tenth Circuit affirmed denial of relief on the first three claims, but reversed the fourth. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the district court with instructions to grant relief on Defendant’s sentences, subject to the State’s right to resentence him within a reasonable time. View "Dodd v. Workman" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants Buschco Corp., Companions, LLC and TT II, Inc. are escort services. The State of Utah brought suit in federal district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Appellants claimed certain amendments to the Utah Code were overly broad, unconstitutionally vague, and infringed on their right to free speech under the First Amendment to the federal constitution. The district court found that portions of Utah's Sexual Solicitation Statute were unconstitutionally vague, and upheld other parts. Appellants appealed. Three issues presented to the Tenth Circuit were: (1) whether issue preclusion applied to the Statute's constitutionality since a similar, predecessor statute had been held unconstitutional; (2) whether Amendments to the Sexual Solicitation Statute were overbroad or placed too great a burden on First Amendment rights; and (3) whether the Amendments to the Statute were unconstitutionally vague. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held: (1) issue preclusion did not apply; (2) the amendments were not unconstitutionally overbroad; and (3) the statute implicated in this appeal was not unconstitutionally vague. View "Bushco, et al v. Shurtleff, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellee John Niemi and several investors intended to build a large luxury ski condominium complex. Niemi was unable to find traditional financing for the project, and turned to Florida businessman, Defendant Michael Burgess. Burgess claimed to represent a European investor, Defendant-Appellee Erwin Lasshofer. As part of the funding scheme, plaintiff had to pay certain fees and pledge a collateral deposit before $250 million dollars would be loaned to him (and his business partners/investors) for the condo project. For his part, Burgess was eventually convicted and sentenced to federal prison for fraud and money laundering. Plaintiffs sued seeking return of the money they pledged, alleging the lost loan irreparably damaged its business, caused millions in lost profits, and sent its other real properties into foreclosure. Burgess maintained he took direction from Lasshofer; Lasshofer claimed he unwittingly did business with a con man. The district court granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction effectively freezing Lasshofer's worldwide assets pending final judgment. Lasshofer appealed the grant of the preliminary injunction. Upon careful review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that plaintiffs, Niemi and individual investors in his condo project, lacked standing to bring suit. Therefore the district court erred in granting the injunction. The injunction was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Niemi, et al v. Burgess, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Delbert Ingram appealed a district court dismissal of his claims against Defendants-Appellees Dr. Hashib D. Faruque, Dr. Yan Feng, Donna Delise, Kyle Inhofe, Lt. Michael Stevenson, and Captain Tim Collins. Plaintiff claimed Defendants had violated his rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the federal constitution by holding him in a psychiatric ward for over twenty-four hours without his consent. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that, among other things, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action, because the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) provided the sole remedy for plaintiff's claims. Upon careful consideration of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit agreed that the district court lacked subject matter to hear plaintiff's claims and affirmed. View "Ingram v. Faruque, et al" on Justia Law

Two petitions for habeas relief arising from the murder conviction and death sentence of Michael Howell were before the Tenth Circuit. Howell's first petition came before the Court in 2002. After the Supreme Court ruled that states could not impose capital punishment on persons with mental impairments, the Court abated the petition and allowed Howell to pursue a mental-disability challenge to his sentence in state court. In 2005, a state court jury found that Howell was not mentally retarded Howell then filed a second petition, alleging seventeen grounds for relief, in addition to the five grounds remaining from his first petition that were never considered the Court. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Howell was not entitled to habeas relief on either petition. View "Howell v. Trammell" on Justia Law