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

Plaintiff Robert Bonnet is a petroleum landman who conducted business through Bobby Bonnet Land Services. In 2008, Plaintiffs entered into a written contract with the Energy and Minerals Department of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation to serve collectively as an independent contractor and consultant. When the Tribe terminated this contract in 2009, Plaintiffs sued various companies and individuals (but not the Tribe) in federal court, alleging these defendants caused the Tribe to terminate this contract prematurely. Plaintiffs served the Tribe with a non-party subpoena duces tecum requesting documents relevant to their suit. The Tribe moved to quash the subpoena based on the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity. The district court denied the Tribe's motion, but modified the subpoena to limit or strike requests it deemed overbroad. The Tribe appealed. The issue before the Tenth Circuit was whether a subpoena duces tecum served on a non-party Tribe seeking documents relevant to a civil suit in federal court is itself a "suit" against the Tribe triggering tribal sovereign immunity. Pursuant to the collateral order doctrine, the Court concluded, yes, it is a "suit" against the Tribe. Therefore the Court reversed the district court's denial of the Tribe's motion to quash based on tribal immunity. View "Bonnet v. Ute Indian Tribe" on Justia Law

Appellant was driving across New Mexico with drugs hidden in his spare tire. He was stopped by police for erratic driving, ultimately on suspicion that when appellant crossed the "fog line" he was under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Appellant was stopped, the car searched, the drugs found, and later arrested. The issue on appeal before the Tenth Circuit was whether the traffic stop was reasonable: at what point otherwise ordinary driving errors crosses the line into reasonable suspicion for police to stop a car for a traffic violation. The Tenth Circuit concluded that appellant's stop was indeed reasonable. Therefore the Court affirmed the trial court's decision denying appellant's motion to suppress. View "United States v. Harmon" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal before the Tenth Circuit was whether police may seize a shotgun from a home when the weapon was not involved in an apparent crime, the crime scene had been secured, and there was no immediate danger to any person. Officers were dispatched to defendant Shawn Gordon's home on a domestic dispute. defendant's girlfriend stated she and defendant fought earlier in the day; she invited officers in. Officers observed an unstrung crossbow and the butt of a shotgun. For safety reasons, the officer took the shotgun, leaving the crossbow behind. Defendant was ultimately arrested for aggravated assault, and he challenged the seizure of the shotgun. The Tenth Circuit concluded that police may not seize weapons incident to arrest that are no apparently involved in a crime, where the scene had been secured, and no immediate danger to any individual was apparent. View "United States v. Gordon" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Andrew Yellowbear, Jr. was convicted for the murder of his daughter. He brought suit against the Wyoming Department of Corrections for the alleged violation of his Constitutional and statutory rights, specifically, that the Department denied him access to the prison's sweatlodge that he might practice his religion. Prison officials insisted that the cost of providing the necessary security to take plaintiff from the special protective unit in which he was housed to the sweat lodge and back was "unduly burdensome." The district court discerned no violation and entered summary judgment against plaintiff. The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded: "Mr. Yellowbear has sought some access to a sweat lodge. The prison has refused any access. [. . .] As litigated to [the Court], the burden on Mr. Yellowbear's religious exercise is high (no access of any kind, ever, to a religious exercise) and the cost to the prison left undefined by the record and thus presumably low. In these circumstances, we don't doubt a reasonable trier of fact could find a RLUIPA violation." View "Yellowbear, Jr. v. Lampert" on Justia Law

In 2010, three individuals ran for the Colorado House of Representatives, House District 61: Kathleen Curry was a write-in candidate; Roger Wilson was the Democratic nominee, and Luke Korkowski was the Republican nominee. Under Colorado law, individual contributions to Ms. Curry were capped at $200, and individual contributions to each of her opponents were capped at $400. Contributors to Ms. Curry’s campaign sued state officials under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming violation of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The district court rejected the claims and granted summary judgment to the state officials. The Tenth Circuit reversed on the equal-protection claim; and in light of this, declined to address the summary-judgment ruling on the First Amendment claims. View "Riddle v. Hickenlooper" on Justia Law

C.W. Mining Company filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. This case arose from the sale of assets from the company's bankruptcy estate. The four appellants did business with C.W. Mining before its involuntary bankruptcy. Appellants claimed bankruptcy trustee should not have sold certain assets to plaintiff Rhino Energy, LLC. The Tenth Circuit surmised that the question for each appellant in this case was whether relief could be granted that would not impact the sale's validity. The Court: (1) dismissed Rhino and its wholly owned subsidiary, Castle Valley Mining, LLC, from the appeals, finding no appeal sought any relief affecting either entity; (2) agreed with the district court with regard to appellee Kenneth Rushton (the bankruptcy trustee in this case), that ANR Company's appeal, COP Coal Development Company's first appeal, and Hiawatha Coal Company's first appeal were all moot; (3) affirmed the district court on COP's and Hiawatha's second appeals; and (4) reversed with regard to Charles Reynolds' appeal. View "ANR Company, Inc. v. C.O.P. Coal Development Co." on Justia Law

In November 2004, Dr. Ashard Yousuf sued Dr. George Cohlmia and Cardiovascular Surgical Specialists Corporation (CVSS) in Oklahoma state court for defamation, tortious interference with business relations/contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress/outrage, negligence, and breach of contract. Dr. Yousuf alleged that Dr. Cohlmia made a series of false statements to local media disparaging Dr. Yousuf's professional reputation. Dr. Cohlmia denied that the statements he made were false. CVSS held a professional liability policy with Physicians Liability Insurance Company (PLICO) and two identical general commercial liability policies with American National Property and Casualty Company (ANPAC, one for each business location), each of which covered Dr. Cohlmia as an additional insured. Dr. Cohlmia demanded that both insurers provide for his defense, pursuant to their respective policies. PLICO agreed to defend the lawsuit under a reservation of rights and requested ANPAC to share in the defense. ANPAC refused, contending its policy did not cover the alleged wrongdoing and that it owed no duty to defend. ANPAC further claimed that even if it erred in refusing to defend Dr. Cohlmia, PLICO had no right to indemnification or contribution for the defense costs it incurred. ANPAC appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of PLICO in a dispute regarding ANPAC's breach of its duty to defend a co-insured. PLICO cross-appealed the district court's denial of its motion for prejudgment interest. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "Yousuf v. Cohlmia" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellee John Schulte appealed his conviction on one count of making false statements to the government. He allegedly made the false statements during a voluntary interview with a Food and Drug Administration agent during the execution of a search warrant on his employer, Spectranetics', offices. Plaintiff claimed two of the charged statements were not false, and therefore, could not support the verdict as a matter of law. As to all five statements, he contended the government failed to prove both his intent to supply false information and the materiality of the statements to the government's investigation. Finding no error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Schulte" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Steven Smothers sued his former employer Solvay Chemical, Inc. for alleged discrimination against him on the basis of his medical disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. He worked eighteen years until Solvay fired him, allegedly because of a safety violation and dispute with a co-worker. Plaintiff maintained the company's true motivation was retaliation for his taking medical leave. The district court granted Solvay summary judgment on plaintiff's FMLA and ADA claims and on his state law claim for breach of implied contract. It dismissed the remaining state law claims as moot based on its resolution of plaintiff's breach of contract claim. Upon careful consideration of the facts of this case, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court on the FMLA and ADA claims, and affirmed on the state law breach of contract claim. View "Smothers v. Solvay Chemicals Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Daniel Herriman voluntarily turned himself in and confessed to planting a bomb near a gas pipeline. When he was criminally charged for this conduct, he pled not guilty by reason of mental illness. The jury convicted him nonetheless. Defendant then sought a downward adjustment to his sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines on the ground that he accepted responsibility for his actions. The district court did not adjust defendant's sentence, and he appealed the district court's decision. Finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Herriman" on Justia Law