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

A Union Pacific Railroad train t-boned an SRM dump truck as the truck crossed the tracks in the path of the train. The collision killed the truck driver and derailed the train causing extensive damage to the train’s engines, its cars, and three of its workers. The three injured train workers sued Union Pacific, SRM, and SRM’s primary auto liability insurer, Bituminous Insurance Company, in state court. Union Pacific cross-claimed against SRM and SRM counter cross-claimed. As SRM’s excess liability insurer, Great American Insurance Company, received notice of the claims and monitored the case for potential exposure under its umbrella policy. Under Oklahoma law, a primary insurer owes its insured a duty to initiate settlement negotiations with a third-party claimant if the insured’s liability to the claimant is clear and the insured likely will be held liable for more than its insurance will cover. Here, SRM sought to extend this obligation Great American. Specifically, SRM claimed that Great American breached its insurance policy and duty of good faith and fair dealing by not proactively investigating claims against SRM and by refusing to tender its policy limits to spur settlement negotiations. The district court granted Great American’s motion for summary judgment on SRM’s claims and denied SRM’s request to reconsider. The Tenth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court judgment and affirmed. View "SRM v. Great American Insurance" on Justia Law

Dennis Rodebaugh ran D&S Guide and Outfitters. Rodebaugh took mostly out-of-state clients on elk and deer hunts in the White River National Forest near Meeker, where they waited in tree stands for elk and deer to approach before shooting them. To attract the elk and deer, Rodebaugh spread salt around the base of the tree stands. Colorado law prohibited “baiting.” And selling wildlife taken in violation of state law is a federal crime under the Lacey Act. After an extensive investigation, Rodebaugh was indicted for several Lacey Act violations. A jury found him guilty on six counts. The district court sentenced him to 41 months in prison and three years of supervised release. He appealed, raising various trial and sentencing issues. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction and prison sentence, rejecting Rodebaugh’s challenges to the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress, the validity of the underlying Colorado regulations, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction on each count, and the application of enhancements to the base offense level under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. View "United States v. Rodebaugh" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Larry Kirkbride was injured while attempting to dislodge a foreign object from a portable rock-crushing plant manufactured by the predecessor of Defendant Terex USA, LLC. Kirkbride brought a products-liability action against Terex, and a jury found the company liable for failure to adequately warn of the plant’s dangers, for defectively manufacturing a critical part inside the crushing plant that led to Kirkbride’s injury, and for breaching an implied warranty of merchantability. Terex argued on appeal to the Tenth Circuit that Kirkbride failed to present sufficient admissible evidence to establish his claims, and that the jury was wrongly instructed on the implied-warranty claim. After review, the Tenth Circuit agreed that there was insufficient evidence to hold Terex liable on any of the theories of recovery that went to the jury, and as a result, Terex was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Kirkbride v. Terex USA" on Justia Law

A deputy sheriff shot Aaron Palmer dead after entering Palmer's home to serve a bench warrant for Palmer's father, Randall Palmer. The elder Palmer failed to appear and comply with a performance contract with the drug court. The deputy thought he say Randall in Aaron's garage earlier int he day, and arranged for support from other law-enforcement officers to apprehend Randall. When he returned to the area with other officers, the deputy allegedly saw somebody who appeared to be Randall running through the garage into the house. He then sped to the front door of the house with gun drawn, pushed the door open, and fired his gun at Aaron, who was standing a few feet from the door, allegedly with a knife in his hand. Randall was not found on the premises. Aaron's widow Nicole Attocknie filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit on behalf of herself, Aaron’s child, and Aaron’s estate claiming that: (1) the deputy violated Aaron’s Fourth Amendment rights by unlawfully entering the house and using excessive force; and (2) another deputy (who was not present when Aaron was shot) violated Aaron’s Fourth Amendment rights by failing to train or supervise the deputy who shot Aaron. Both deputies claimed qualified immunity, but the district court denied their motions for summary judgment. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the denials of qualified immunity to the deputies: "[h]ot pursuit is the sole justification offered by the defendants for Cherry’s entry of Aaron’s home. But Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that Cherry was not in hot pursuit of Randall when he entered the home and that the entry was therefore unlawful. And because the use of force would only have been necessary as a result of the entry, a jury could properly find that the unlawful entry caused Aaron’s death." View "Attocknie v. Smith" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Kelly Osborne applied to work as a plasma center technician (PCT) at BioLife Plasma Services. After two interviews, Osborne (who is deaf) was conditionally offered the PCT position pending final tests and paperwork. When BioLife’s human resources department received Osborne’s medical information, it determined Osborne could not safely monitor the donor area of the facility because she could not hear the alarms on the plasmapheresis machines, which audibly sound when something goes wrong or requires attention. When Osborne reported to the facility for her first day of work, Joe Elder, the manager, informed her BioLife had rescinded her offer of employment. Osborne filed a lawsuit alleging that BioLife’s revocation of her job offer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court determined Osborne failed to identify accommodations that would allow her to perform essential functions of the PCT position, and granted summary judgment to BioLife and instructed each party to bear its own costs. Both parties appealed: Osborne, the district court’s grant of summary judgment to BioLife; BioLife, seeking reversal of the district court’s determination that each party should bear its own costs. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded Osborne identified a genuine dispute of material fact regarding her ability to perform essential functions of the PCT position with reasonable accommodation, making summary judgment premature. BioLife’s cross-appeal for costs was deemed moot. View "Osborne v. Baxter Healthcare Corp." on Justia Law

The government successfully prosecuted defendant-appellant Joseph Kupfer in two trials, alleging Kupfer and his wife conspired to enable Dr. Armando Gutierrez (a media consultant) to increase his compensation under a State contract without any additional work. In exchange for the increase, Gutierrez allegedly gave kickbacks to Kupfer through Kupfer’s consulting company. The government alleged that Gutierrez had disguised the kickbacks as payments for Kupfer’s work on a separate media campaign involving voter awareness. In the first trial, the jury found Kupfer and his wife guilty of tax evasion. In the second trial, the jury found Kupfer guilty of stealing and participating in a conspiracy to steal federal government property with Gutierrez. The district court entered a judgment of conviction for these crimes and sentenced Kupfer to ten years in prison. Kupfer appeals the conviction and sentence on all counts. After review, the Tenth Circuit found no reversible error as to Kupfer's conviction. The Court did concluded that the district court miscalculated the sentence, reversed and remanded for resentencting. View "United States v. Kupfer" on Justia Law

Defendant Kenneth Barrett was convicted on two counts of felony murder and one count of intentionally killing a state law enforcement officer. He received a death sentence, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed that sentence on direct appeal. Defendant then filed a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255, which the district court denied. The Tenth Circuit then granted a certificate of appealability (COA) enabling him to appeal on several of his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review of the merits of defendant's appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed on all but one claim: because defendant could have been entitled to relief on his contention that his trial attorneys were ineffective by failing to investigate and present evidence of his background and mental health for the trial’s penalty phase, the Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on that issue. View "United States v. Barrett" on Justia Law

The State of Oklahoma charged petitioner-appellant Phillip Hancock with two counts of first-degree murder. Hancock admitted that he had killed two men, but asserted self-defense. The jury rejected the defense and found Hancock guilty on both counts, for which he received the death sentence. Hancock unsuccessfully sought relief on direct appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”) and in post-conviction proceedings. Hancock then turned to federal district court, seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The court denied relief, and Hancock appealed. Finding the evidence supported the jury verdict, that he did not receive ineffective assistance of trial or appellate counsel, and that there was otherwise no reversible error at trial to warrant habeas relief. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Hancock's conviction and sentence. View "Hancock v. Trammell" on Justia Law

Juan Lorenzo Barela, Jr. pled guilty to one count of distributing child pornography and one count of possessing child pornography. The district court imposed a controlling sentence of 210 months’ imprisonment, stemming in part from the district court’s imposition of a five-level enhancement based on its finding that Barela distributed child pornography “for the receipt, or expectation of receipt, of a thing of value.” The district court also imposed special conditions on Barela’s supervised release, including a restriction on possession of materials depicting or describing “sexually explicit conduct.” On appeal, Barela argued the district court’s application of the section 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) Sentencing Guideline enhancement was at odds with Tenth Circuit precedent in "United States v. Geiner," (498 F.3d 1104 (2007)), which held the enhancement required the government to prove something more than that the defendant distributed child pornography through a peer-to-peer network. Barela also generally challenged the special conditions of his supervised release based on the district court’s failure to provide reasons for their imposition. Barela specifically challenged the condition prohibiting him from possessing materials depicting or describing sexually explicit conduct, arguing that condition is unrelated to the sentencing factors and violated his First Amendment rights. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with Barela that "Geiner" controlled, and remanded to the district court with directions to vacate Barela’s sentence and resentence him. Based on its plain error review, the Tenth Circuit concluded Barela failed to show that either potential error justified vacating the special conditions. View "United States v. Barela" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Gabriel Saiz was convicted on two counts of unlawful firearm possession. He was given an enhanced sentence because at the time of his offenses he was on probation for several state crimes in New Mexico. After he had pleaded guilty to the state charges, they were conditionally discharged under state law, which meant that if he completed a term of probation they would be dismissed. He argued on appeal to the Tenth Circuit that he was not eligible for an enhanced sentence for purposes of the federal Sentencing Guidelines because being subject to a conditional discharge did not count as being “under indictment.” The Court disagreed and concluded that an offender subject to conditional discharge was still under indictment until the condition is met (completion of the term of probation). View "United States v. Saiz" on Justia Law