6th Cir. Decisions for Jul 7-11, 2008 (3 Ky NPO)
PUBLISHED OPINIONS
| Opinion | Short Title/District |
|---|---|
| 08a0245a.06 2008/07/07 |
Mahdi v. Bagley Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland |
| 08a0246p.06 2008/07/07 |
USA v. Griffin Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland |
| 08a0247p.06 2008/07/08 |
Sigler v. Amer Honda Motor Co Eastern District of Tennessee of Chattanooga KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. In this diversity-of-citizenship lawsuit arising under the Tennessee Products Liability Act (“TPLA”), the district court granted summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee American Honda Motor Company (“Honda”) after considering several unsworn letters from various experts for Honda. Because our case law clearly prohibits considering such materials, and because Plaintiff-Appellant Shelly Sigler (“Sigler”) presented sufficient evidence to establish the existence of genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the airbag in her vehicle was defective and caused her injuries, we REVERSE the district court’s judgment and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
| 08a0248p.06 2008/07/08 |
William Mobley v. CIR Commissioner of Internal Revenue |
| 08a0249p.06 2008/07/09 |
USA v. Ford Motor Co Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit |
| 08a0250a.06 2008/07/09 |
Wagenknecht v. IRS Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland |
| 08a0251p.06 2008/07/10 |
Croskey v. BMW of N Amer Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit MERRITT, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from a jury verdict in an automotive products liability action in favor of defendants BMW of North America, Inc., a BMW distributor, and Bayerische Motoren Werk Aktiengesellschaft (BMW AG), the manufacturer. Plaintiff was injured when a plastic radiator piece on a 1992 BMW failed, releasing hot radiator fluid. On appeal, plaintiff alleges numerous errors at trial concerning evidentiary rulings and a jury instruction, most of which we reject. But, because the district court erroneously ruled that evidence of similar incidents could not be used by plaintiff to prove negligence in the design of the car by BMW, we reverse the district court and remand for a new trial. A recent Michigan case decided after the district court tried this case indicates that similar-incidents evidence in this case may be admitted to prove design defect. |
| 08a0252p.06 2008/07/10 |
Warshak v. USA Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati |
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION OPINIONS
| Opinion | Pub Date | Short Title/District |
|---|---|---|
| 08a0403n.06 | 2008/07/07 | USA v. Zamarripa-Garcia Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland |
| 08a0404n.06 | 2008/07/07 | Beltran v. Mukasey Board of Immigration Appeals |
| 08a0405n.06 | 2008/07/07 | McCarty v. Doe Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit |
| 08a0406n.06 | 2008/07/07 | E-Poch Properties v. TRW Automotive U.S. Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland |
| 08a0407n.06 | 2008/07/07 | Deborah Guthrie v. Michael Astrue Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland |
| 08a0408n.06 | 2008/07/08 | Totes Isotoner Corp v. Intl Chemical Wrks Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati |
| 08a0409n.06 | 2008/07/09 | USA v. Turner Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati |
| 08a0410n.06 | 2008/07/09 | Corder v. Ford Motor Co Western District of Kentucky at Louisville WILLIAM W SCHWARZER, District Judge. Kenneth Corder, Sr., brought this action against Ford Motor Company on behalf of himself and others similarly situated seeking damages under the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (“KCPA”), Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 367.100 et seq., restitution and other equitable and declaratory relief. Corder alleges that in May 2004 he purchased a Model Year 2004 F-250 Ford F-Series Super Duty Truck with a 6.0L Power Stroke Diesel engine and that he subsequently discovered that the truck he purchased contained a 2003.25 6.0L Power Stroke Diesel engine instead of the improved 2004 6.0L Power Stroke Diesel engine which Ford had installed in 2004 F-250 Series Super Duty trucks beginning in truck with a 2003 engine was a deceptive practice and unjustly enriched Ford. After initial discovery, Ford moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion. It held that Ford’s actions were not unfair, false, misleading or deceptive. The court reasoned that the changes implemented in the 2004 engine did not result in an engine substantially different from that installed in Corder’s truck and that Ford’s failure to disclose the engine’s manufacturing history was not a material omission. It further held that Corder had failed to show that he had suffered “ascertainable loss of money or property” within the meaning of the KCPA. Finally, the court rejected the claim for equitable relief. Corder timely appealed. |
| 08a0411n.06 | 2008/07/09 | Bariteau v. PNC Financial Serv Western District of Kentucky at Louisville SUTTON, Circuit Judge. In the late 1990s, Paul Bariteau lost nearly $14 million that he had invested in the Military Channel after the company’s vice president and chairman, Lenny Krane, made several unauthorized withdrawals from the company’s account with PNC Bank. In 2006, after obtaining a default judgment against the judgment-proof Krane, Bariteau filed a complaint against PNC, alleging that PNC had breached its agreement with the Military Channel (of which he allegedly was a third-party beneficiary) and aided and abetted Krane’s misdeeds. The district court dismissed the complaint and denied Bariteau’s post-judgment motion for leave to amend his complaint. We affirm. |
| 08b0012n.06 | 2008/07/09 | In re: Alga Henson v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Lexington |
| 08a0412n.06 | 2008/07/09 | USA v. Townsend Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville |
| 08a0413n.06 | 2008/07/10 | Vushaj v. Mukasey Board of Immigration Appeals |
| 08a0414n.06 | 2008/07/10 | Jiang v. Mukasey Board of Immigration Appeals |
| 08a0415n.06 | 2008/07/10 | Amer Auto Ins Co v. Transp Ins Co Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit |
| 08a0416n.06 | 2008/07/11 | Gotosa v. Mukasey Board of Immigration Appeals |
Comments