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

Gregory and Andrea Chernushin owned a second home in Colorado in joint tenancy with right of survivorship. Eventually, Mr. Chernushin (not Ms. Chernushin) filed for bankruptcy. During the bankruptcy proceedings, Mr. Chernushin died. The bankruptcy trustee, Robertson Cohen, then filed an adversary complaint against Ms. Chernushin, seeking to sell the home. Ms. Chernushin argued the bankruptcy estate no longer included any interest in the home because Mr. Chernushin’s joint tenancy interest ended at his death. The bankruptcy court agreed with Ms. Chernushin, as did the district court on appeal. The trustee appealed, but the Tenth Circuit concurred the bankruptcy estate had no more interest in the home than Mr. Chernushin and Mr. Chernushin’s interest extinguished when he died. View "Cohen v. Chernushin" on Justia Law

In May 2016, Anthony Bettcher pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon. Afterward, a probation officer reviewed Bettcher’s past, including his criminal history, and prepared a Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). The PSR informed the district court that in 2013, the State of Utah had charged Bettcher with second-degree aggravated assault. In the PSR, the probation officer recommended treating this earlier conviction as a crime of violence, which if adopted would enhance Bettcher’s base offense level. The government objected when the district court refused to consider the Utah aggravated assault as a "crime of violence" under the federal sentencing rules. The issue was brought before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Specifically, the Court was presented with the question of whether Utah's second-degree aggravated-assault offense categorically qualified as a "crime of violence" under the elements clause in the federal sentencing guidelines. The Tenth Circuit held the Utah offense did qualify, and reversed the district court's decision to the contrary, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Bettcher" on Justia Law

A jury found Clifford Currie guilty of assault with intent to commit murder. Currie splashed gasoline on his supervisor, lit her on fire, attempted to stand on her neck, and attacked her with a straight razor and scissors. Currie worked as a social services assistant at the Munson Army Health Center (“Munson”) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Lieutenant Katie Ann Blanchard, a registered nurse with the army, supervised him. "Currie and Lt. Blanchard had a difficult working relationship." The relationship was strained one day in September 2016 when, after informing him requests for overtime pay would be denied, Currie stepped inside Lt. Blanchard's office, threw gasoline on her and then a lit match. Currie then attempted to stab Lt. Blanchard with a straight razor and scissors. On appeal, he argued prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments denied him a fair trial. His motion challenged nine of the prosecutor’s statements during closing argument and rebuttal. On appeal, Currie grouped the statements into three categories, arguing the prosecutor: (1) misstated the burden of proof for assault with intent to commit murder; (2) misstated the heat of passion defense; and (3) improperly warned the jury about legitimizing violence. After a review of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit found that even if the jury saw a conflict in the prosecutor’s heat of passion explanations, the prosecutor made clear the judge’s instructions would govern. The prosecutor’s improper statements during closing argument did not render Currie’s trial fundamentally unfair and did not affect the jury’s verdict. The Court found the rest of her comments were not improper. View "United States v. Currie" on Justia Law

Defendant Ricky Malone was convicted in Oklahoma state court of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed Defendant’s conviction on direct appeal and denied his petitions for postconviction relief. Defendant then filed an unsuccessful application for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 with the federal district court. The Tenth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on the following issues: (1) whether the trial court’s giving erroneous jury instructions on his voluntary-intoxication defense was harmless; (2) whether those instructions deprived him of the constitutional right to a fair trial; (3) whether he was deprived of the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel by (a) his trial counsel’s failure to object to those instructions or (b) his trial counsel’s alleged failure to adequately prepare his expert witness in support of the voluntary-intoxication defense; and (4) whether his conviction must be set aside because of the cumulative effect of the above-mentioned errors. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief, largely because of the overwhelming evidence of Defendant’s guilt. View "Malone v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

Husky Ventures, Inc. (“Husky”) sued B55 Investments Ltd. (“B55”) and its president, Christopher McArthur, for breach of contract and tortious interference under Oklahoma law. In response, B55 filed counterclaims against Husky. A jury reached a verdict in Husky’s favor, awarding $4 million in compensatory damages against both B55 and McArthur and $2 million in punitive damages against just McArthur; the jury also rejected the counterclaims. In further proceedings, the district court entered a permanent injunction and a declaratory judgment in Husky’s favor. After the court entered final judgment, B55 and McArthur appealed, and moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) or, in the alternative, to certify a question of state law to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The court denied the motion in all respects. On appeal, B55 and McArthur contended the district court erred in denying their motion for a new trial and again moved to certify a question of state law to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. In addition, they appealed the permanent injunction and declaratory judgment and argue that the district court erred in refusing to grant leave to amend the counterclaims. The Tenth Circuit dismissed B55 and McArthur’s claims relating to the motion for a new trial for lack of appellate jurisdiction and denied their motion to certify the state law question as moot. The Court otherwise affirmed the district court’s judgment on the remaining issues. View "Husky Ventures v. B55 Investments" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant, Gunther Glaub, was convicted of violating the criminal provisions of the False Claims Act. He argued on appeal that his act of submitting personal bills and invoices to the United States for payment was protected by the First Amendment. Furthermore, he challenged jury instructions given at trial on grounds that they failed to properly define "claim." Finding no support in the trial court record for either of Glaub's claims, the Tenth Circuit affirmed his conviction. View "United States v. Glaub" on Justia Law

Billy Hamilton appealed a district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Northfield Insurance Company as to Hamilton’s claim for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing and his accompanying request for punitive damages. In March 2015, Hamilton purchased a Northfield insurance policy for a commercial building in Council Hill, Oklahoma. Northfield had a third party inspect the property for underwriting purposes; the underwriting survey report concluded the risk was “Satisfactory with Recommendation Compliance” and identified eight recommendations for repairs. A tenant informed him the roof was leaking in December 2015, and Hamilton reported the leak and the resulting interior damage to Northfield. Northfield denied the claim because a claims adjuster saw no evidence of damage. Hamilton had made repairs, but the adjuster did not see evidence of them, and did not ask whether any were made. A week after receiving the denial, Northfield informed Hamilton it would not renew his policy when it expired. Hamilton was unsuccessful in his suit against Northfield, challenging on appeal the outcome with respect to breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing (he won a jury verdict on his breach of contract claim). The Tenth Circuit found no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in its rulings on Hamilton’s claims, and affirmed. View "Hamilton v. Northfield Insurance Company" on Justia Law

During a traffic stop in Arizona, law enforcement discovered evidence linking Deon Martinez to a bank robbery in Utah. Martinez argued that the state trooper who pulled him over lacked reasonable suspicion to do so, and the trial court erred in not suppressing evidence seized from his vehicle. Here, the district court relied on four facts to conclude that the arresting trooper had reasonable suspicion to stop the Cadillac: (1) it noted the similarities between the Winslow robbery suspects and the person driving the reportedly suspicious white Cadillac in Flagstaff; (2) it credited testimony that white Cadillacs “aren’t an ordinary part of the automotive ecosystem on this particular stretch of road;” (3) the travel time from Flagstaff to Winslow was generally consistent with the gap in time between the suspicious-vehicle sighting in Flagstaff and the robbery in Winslow and the travel time from Winslow to the site of the traffic stop was generally consistent with the gap in time between the robbery and the stop; and (4) the district court found that the arresting-trooper’s impression of the driver through the Cadillac’s tinted window matched the general description of a Winslow robbery suspect. The Tenth Circuit found that no one reported seeing a white Cadillac - or any other vehicle - at the Winslow robbery. Instead, “a suspicious vehicle” of that color and make reportedly left a parking lot of a Wells Fargo in a different city (Flagstaff) some 41 minutes before the Winslow robbery. So to reasonably suspect that the white Cadillac he stopped was carrying bank-robbery suspects, the trooper had to first infer that the reportedly suspicious white Cadillac from Flagstaff was also involved in the Winslow robbery. From this and descriptions of the robbery suspects, the arresting trooper had no basis to believe the Cadillac he pulled over 130 miles away was in fact the very same Cadillac. The Court reversed the district court’s order denying Martinez’ motion to suppress and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Wakaya Perfection, LLC and its principals sued Youngevity International Corp. and its principals in Utah state court. The Youngevity parties responded by bringing their own suit against the Wakaya parties in a California federal district court, then removing the Utah case to federal court. These steps resulted in concurrent federal cases sharing at least some claims and issues. The California litigation progressed; and in November 2017, the federal district court in Utah ordered dismissal. The issues presented for the Tenth Circuit's review centered on whether: (1) the federal district court should have abstained from exercising jurisdiction under the Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976) test; and (2) and arbitrator would have needed to decide the arbitrability of Wakaya's claims. The Tenth Circuit reversed on both grounds: the federal trial court applied the wrong abstention test and erroneously ruled that an arbitrator should have decided whether Wakaya's claims were arbitrable. View "Wakaya Perfection, LLC v. Youngevity International" on Justia Law

This appeal grew out of a battle between the majority and minority owners of units in an investment vehicle. The majority unitholder wanted to merge, but this would require the minority to sell their units or convert them to shares in a newly created entity. The minority unitholders balked because they wanted to retain their original units, but the majority unitholder approved the merger, terminating the minority’s units in the process. The termination of these units led the minority to sue. The issue presented for the Tenth Circuit’s review reduced to one of “classic” contract interpretation: did the contract empower the majority unitholder to approve a merger that eliminated and replaced the minority unitholders’ units without providing an opportunity for a class vote? The district court concluded “yes,” and the Tenth Circuit concurred. View "Stender v. Archstone-Smith" on Justia Law