CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
STEPHEN MATTHEW HOPKINS and JULIE R. HOPKINS,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
ANTHONY (TONY) NICHOLS and WILLIAM (BILLY)
LAMB, in their individual and official capacities,
Defendants-Appellants. |
No. 21-5686 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Columbia.
No. 1:19-cv-00059—William Lynn Campbell, Jr., District Judge.
Argued: March 10, 2022
Decided and Filed: June 16, 2022
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; GIBBONS and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
Plaintiffs Stephen Matthew and Julie Hopkins kept cattle on a farm in Tennessee.
Suspecting animal cruelty, Marshall County Detective Anthony Nichols searched the farm.
He and Sheriff William Lamb later seized the cattle without a warrant. Plaintiffs brought suit
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Nichols and Lamb violated their Fourth Amendment right
to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The district court denied defendants
qualified immunity as to those claims, which they now appeal. We affirm. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
KIM ARLENE CARROLL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
EVA ARLENE HILL, individually and as former
Executrix of the Estate of Albert P. Barber; MICHELLE
BARBER; WILLIAM A. BARBER; WILLIAM D. BARBER;
GEAUGA COUNTY PARK DISTRICT,
Defendants-Appellees. |
No. 21-3885 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 1:20-cv-01833—J. Philip Calabrese, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: June 16, 2022
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; COLE and DONALD, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
SUTTON, Chief Judge. Kim Carroll claims that Arlene Barber submitted an invalid
version of her brother Albert Barber’s will to an Ohio probate court. Roughly 20 years after the
court probated the will, Carroll allegedly learned that Albert was her father. That prompted
Carroll to file this lawsuit, claiming that she should have inherited Albert’s estate. The district
court concluded that she lacked standing and that the probate exception to federal jurisdiction
barred it from hearing her claims. We affirm for lack of standing. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
JOHNETTA CARR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LOUISVILLE-JEFFERSON COUNTY, KENTUCKY METRO
GOVERNMENT; TONY FINCH, GARY HUFFMAN, TERRY
JONES, JIM LAWSON, and SHAWN SEABOLT, Police
Detectives, in their individual capacities; TROY
PITCOCK and JAMES HELLINGER, Louisville Police
Sergeants, in their individual capacities,
Defendants-Appellees. |
No. 21-5736 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.
No. 3:20-cv-00818—Charles R. Simpson III, District Judge.
Argued: May 5, 2022
Decided and Filed: June 16, 2022
Before: SILER, GIBBONS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. In 2008, Johnetta Carr entered an Alford plea
to second degree manslaughter, pleading guilty but maintaining her innocence. Over a decade
later, she was pardoned. Carr then sued Louisville-Jefferson County, the City of Louisville, and
several police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging her conviction was the result of
constitutional violations. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding Carr’s
§ 1983 claims were not cognizable under the Supreme Court’s precedent in Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994). As Carr’s pardon satisfies the requirements of Heck, we reverse the district
court and remand for Carr to pursue her claims. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SOUTH
CAROLINA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RUTTER & RUSSIN, LLC; ROBERT P. RUTTER; JUSTIN P.
RUDIN; GALLAGHER, GAMS, TALLAN, BARNES &
LITTRELL, LLP; MARK HOWARD GAMS; STATE FARM
FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees. |
No. 21-3673 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 1:19-cv-02609—J. Philip Calabrese, District Judge.
Argued: March 18, 2022
Decided and Filed: June 16, 2022
Before: SILER, CLAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Parties who fail to assert their rights during the litigation of a
case sometimes seek to belatedly raise those rights in a collateral attack on the court’s judgment.
This strategy usually does not end well—as Business Development Corporation of South
Carolina (BDC) has come to learn. BDC held a mortgage on a home that had been damaged.
The home’s owners sued their insurer in Ohio state court when the insurer denied coverage for
the damage. They named BDC as a defendant because of its interest in the insurance proceeds.
For reasons known only to BDC, it chose not to appear in the case. After the homeowners and
insurer settled, the state court found that BDC had no right to the proceeds. When BDC learned
of this result, it did not seek relief from the judgment in the state court. Rather, it filed this
federal suit alleging that the insurer, its lawyers, and the homeowners’ lawyers all colluded to
defraud it. The district court dismissed the suit under Ohio’s claim-preclusion law. Because
BDC cannot meet the demanding test required to attack the state court’s judgment in this
collateral fashion, we affirm. |
|