CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
STEPHANIE LOGSDON SMITH; BRIDGETT DENNIS;
ESTATE OF CAMMIE MUSINSKI, by Alayna Musinski,
Administrator,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY,
Defendant-Appellee. |
No. 21-6183 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.
No. 3:21-cv-00288—Benjamin J. Beaton, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: June 3, 2022
Before: CLAY, ROGERS, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s dismissal of their civil rights
action for violations of the Thirteenth Amendment arising from the alleged sexual abuse of
Plaintiffs by a state probation officer. The district court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss
on the basis that the Thirteenth Amendment neither provides a private cause of action for
damages nor abrogates state sovereign immunity. We AFFIRM for the reasons set forth below. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
JUDY FULKERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellant. |
No. 21-3367 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 1:19-cv-01180—David A. Ruiz, Magistrate Judge.
Argued: December 8, 2021
Decided and Filed: June 3, 2022
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; SILER and READLER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Daniel Tymoc died in a car crash while speeding
and driving recklessly. Tymoc’s mother, Judy Fulkerson, pursued accidental death
benefits under Tymoc’s life insurance policy, issued by Unum Life Insurance Company. Unum,
however, denied those benefits, invoking a policy exclusion for “losses caused by, contributed to
by, or resulting from . . . commission of a crime.” Fulkerson successfully challenged Unum’s
interpretation of the crime exclusion in the district court and was awarded the $100,000
accidental death benefit. Unum now appeals. Because reckless driving falls within the
unambiguous plain meaning of crime, we reverse that aspect of the district court’s judgment. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
MARK CHARLTON-PERKINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI; KENNETH PETREN and
GEORGE UETZ, in their official and individual
capacities,
Defendants-Appellees. |
No. 21-3840 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 1:20-cv-00179—Timothy S. Black, District Judge.
Argued: May 16, 2022
Decided and Filed: June 3, 2022
Before: SILER, BUSH, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Appellant Mark Charlton-Perkins, a male research
scientist, applied for a professorship at the University of Cincinnati (“UC”) in late 2017.
Yet after UC determined him the most-qualified candidate for the position, or so he alleges, it
refused to hire him on account of his gender. Adding insult to injury, UC then discriminatorily
canceled the job search itself, ensuring that Charlton-Perkins could never fill the position. In
response, he filed the present lawsuit. But the district court dismissed his complaint for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. Because nobody ever filled the canceled position, it reasoned,
Charlton-Perkins’s claims never ripened into an adverse employment action, and thus he suffered
no concrete injury cognizable in federal court. We now reverse. Charlton-Perkins has plausibly
alleged a ripe employment-discrimination claim, so his suit may proceed. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
IN RE: MURRAY ENERGY HOLDINGS CO.,
Debtor |
No. 21-8014 |
On Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 2:19-bk-56885—John E. Hoffman, Judge.
Decided and Filed: June 3, 2022
Before: BAUKNIGHT, CROOM, and STOUT, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
In this appeal, creditor Penn Line Service, Inc. (“Penn Line”) argues that the bankruptcy
court abused its discretion when it denied Penn Line’s application for an administrative expense
claim and related motion for reconsideration and sustained Debtor’s objection to Penn Line’s
proofs of claim without allowing Penn Line an opportunity to conduct discovery or hold an
evidentiary hearing.
Because the Panel finds that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Penn Line’s motion for reconsideration, and Penn Line did not appeal the original order denying
its administrative expense or the order sustaining the objection to claims, the Panel AFFIRMS
the judgment of the bankruptcy court. |
|