Articles Posted in Federal Law

by

In July 2003, Evan Miller and Colby Smith killed Cole Cannon by beating Cannon with a baseball bat and burning his trailer. Cannon was inside. At the time, Miller was 14 years old. After Miller’s arrest, he was transferred from Lawrence County Juvenile Court to Lawrence County Circuit Court to be tried as an adult for capital murder. In 2006, a grand jury indicted Miller. At trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The trial sentenced Miller to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

Miller filed a post-trial motion for a new trial. He argued that the sentencing of a 14-year-old defendant to life without the possibility of parole constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The trial judge denied the motion. Miller appealed to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, which affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Supreme Court of Alabama denied Miller’s petition for writ of certiorari.

There was a companion case in whih the petitioner was also 14 years old at the time. He had robbed a local movie store in Blytheville, Ark., which led to the murder of the store clerk. There were three boys involved; all were 14 years old at the time. After a trial for the murder of the store clerk, one defendant was tried and convicted of capital murder and aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced him to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

Continue reading

by

Levia Moultrie began working at Penn Aluminum in 1990. Over the next 20 years, Moultrie worked in different positions, including forklift operator, block operator, utility coiler and scrap chopper.

In September 2008, Moultrie used his seniority to take on the job of forklift operator. The collective bargaining agreement between Moultrie’s union and Penn Aluminum gave Moultrie two days to show that he could perform the job.

A little more than a week after Moultrie switched into the forklift operator job, he began experiencing performance problems. During one shipment he was tasked with handling, Moultrie incorrectly hooked up some wires causing a delay in a shipment.

Continue reading

by

Hennessy Industries was a car part manufacturer. It was sued frequently for asbestos-related personal injury claims. Hennessy sought insurance coverage for these claims from National Union Fire Insurance Co. The companies entered into a cost-sharing agreement in 2008. However, as the lawsuits and claims came in, Hennessy asked National Union to indemnify its settlements and defense costs. To resolve their differences about what was owed, Hennessy demanded arbitration under the agreement. Illinois law would be applied.

Hennessy filed a lawsuit against National Union under the Illinois Insurance Code, 215 ILCS 5/155(1), which provides that, in cases involving vexatious and unreasonable delay, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, other costs, plus an additional amount.

Hennessy claimed that National Union’s delays in providing coverage were vexatious and unreasonable. The federal district court judge in Chicago declined to dismiss the case, acknowledging a provision that “the arbitrator shall not be empowered or have jurisdiction to award punitive damages, fines or penalties,” but held that Hennessy’s claim arose under statutory law rather than under the cost-sharing agreement.

Continue reading

by

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago has dismissed an appeal from a U.S. District Court judge. In an extremely sad case, Robert Lindner’s parents, Burton and Zorine Lindner, were driving under a bridge near north suburban Glenview, Ill., when a Union Pacific freight train derailed overhead. The derailment caused the collapse of the bridge crushing the Lindners in their car. Their son brought a lawsuit against Union Pacific and a wrongful death action in Illinois state court alleging that Union Pacific’s negligence caused the accident and his parents’ wrongful deaths.

At the time the lawsuit was filed, there was complete diversity between the parties. That means that the residencies of the plaintiffs and the residencies of the defendants must be of different states. The decedents were residents and citizens of Illinois. The residency determines diversity jurisdiction. Mr. Lindner was acting as a representative of the estate.

Union Pacific is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Omaha, Neb. Union Pacific removed the case to the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago because of the complete diversity of the parties.

Continue reading

by

Pilot Flying J, a truck stop fueling and restaurant chain that is common along Illinois and U.S. highways, has agreed to pay $92 million in fines to the federal government for a scheme to cheat truck drivers out of agreed-upon diesel fuel rebates. The agreement was reached with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee and Pilot Travel Centers, LLC d/b/a “Pilot Flying J.”

It was alleged that the scheme cost the company’s truck driver customers more than $56 million. The agreement came after 10 Pilot Flying J employees pleaded guilty to involvement in the plot to defraud Flying J customers.

Pilot Flying J is one of the largest trucker diesel suppliers in the United States. Flying J offered rebates and discount programs to encourage loyalty among its trucking customers. The discounts offered by Pilot Flying J varied among its numerous truck stops making it difficult for customers to know whether they were getting their agreed-upon discounts. The U.S. Attorney’s Office stated that in some instances, Pilot Flying J instructed its sales staff how to reduce the rebates in order to make some discounts more profitable.

Continue reading

by

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago has affirmed the dismissal of a fraud case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Patrick Camasta filed a lawsuit against Joseph A. Bank Clothiers Inc. claiming that prior to making purchases at the company’s far north suburban store in Deer Park, Ill., that he saw an advertisement about “sale prices” for certain items.

Camasta’s complaint did not specify when or where he saw the advertisement, what exactly the advertisement said, what the “sale prices” were or what particular merchandise was eligible for the sale.

At the Deer Park Joseph A. Bank store, Camasta found that there was a promotion in which customers were able to buy one shirt and get two for free. Camasta purchased six shirts for $167. After his purchases, Camasta alleged that he learned that Bank’s practice was to advertise normal retail prices as normal price reductions. Camasta alleged but for this fraudulent retail tactic, he would not have purchased the six shirts.

Continue reading

by

In 1952, the owner of a parcel of land in Illinois granted a pipeline operator an easement for two pipelines to cross his land. The first pipeline was built immediately.

The easements specified that the second pipeline, if constructed, was required to be built within ten feet of the first pipeline. The pipeline operator promised the landowner that the land would remain farmable.

In 2012, the current pipeline operator notified the landowner that it planned to build the second pipeline. The owner responded with a lawsuit to quiet title. The pipeline operator removed the case to the federal district court under diversity jurisdiction.

Continue reading

by

Monika Salata was cleaning property owned by Weyerhauser Corp. on March 28, 2008 when she fell and was severely injured. She claimed that she fell because of loose floor tiles. Originally the lawsuit was filed in state court in the Circuit Court of Kane County, Ill.

Weyerhaeuser removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The parties attempted voluntary mediation but could not reach an agreement. At that point Salata’s attorney withdrew from representing her, and a new attorney took over in March 2012.

At a status hearing on April 4, 2012, the new lawyer stated that she needed additional time to conduct fact discovery. The court extended the discovery deadline until the end of May 2012.

Continue reading

by

The National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) has initiated a tougher standard for the rear impact guards and other safety devices for single-unit trucks. This would also apply to rear impact guards on trailers and semitrailers.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has something to do with the change in safety rules that advocacy groups presented with signatures to promote the improvements in rear impact guards and rear impact protection. The effort was to require stronger underride guards for larger trucks and trailers. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety was instrumental in pushing for these rule changes. The study was done about three years ago and found that there were many underride fatalities because the passenger car slid under and beneath the truck or its trailer. This would happen even with the current standard of underride guards in place.

The testing included higher speeds, lower speeds and different underride guards that showed that there were regular failures of the underride guards that were in place. The regulations now do not have to meet the 1996 rules for strength of the underride guards. The long and short of it is that the 2010 study found that most underride guards in place on today’s highways and roads are ineffective in preventing serious injuries and deaths from rear impacts by cars and other vehicles with tractor trailers.

Continue reading

by

In a variety of cases that end in settlement, the parties often agree to make the settlement agreement confidential. When the parties agree separately that the terms of the settlement remain confidential, it’s a different story than the one in which the court is required or asked to seal the settlement agreement.

In the case of Goesel v. Boley International, there were two court-sealed settlement agreements that were the subject of an appeal to the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago. The appeal asked to keep the settlement agreements sealed. Judge Richard A. Posner ruled that a confidential agreement between the parties was an insufficient basis for the settlement documents to be sealed.

The Goesel case was a personal-injury lawsuit brought on behalf of a minor. Because of the status of the plaintiff, that being a minor, the plaintiff was required to obtain a district judge’s approval of the settlement. The trial judge reduced a portion of the settlement proceeds that were payable to the plaintiff’s law firm for attorney fees and costs and approved the settlement as then revised. The appeal in this case is by the law firm that challenged the judge’s modification of the settlement terms, which included attorney fees.

Continue reading