CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
WENDY BROWNING, Mother and Next Friend of C.S., a minor; DARRELL SMITH, as Guardian of M.S., a minor,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
EDMONSON COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al.,
Defendants,

SHANE DOYLE; JORDAN JONES,
Defendants-Appellants.
   No. 20-6078
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky at Bowling Green.
No. 1:18-cv-00057—Gregory N. Stivers, District Judge.
Argued: July 28, 2021
Decided and Filed: November 17, 2021
Before: COLE, ROGERS, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. This case arises from a high-speed police pursuit by Edmonson County, Kentucky, sheriffs that ended in a collision between the fleeing car and another vehicle. Two minor passengers in the fleeing vehicle, C.S. and M.S., were injured, and one of them, C.S., although unconscious in the backseat, was subsequently tased by defendant Deputy Sheriff Jordan Jones when C.S. did not respond to instructions from Jones. The two minors brought this suit against Edmonson County and several police officers for the injuries they sustained, asserting a variety of constitutional and state law claims. The district court dismissed most of the claims, but denied summary judgment on an excessive force claim against defendant Jones pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and on several state-law claims asserted against defendants Jones and Sheriff Shane Doyle. In this interlocutory appeal, Jones and Doyle argue that the district court erred in ruling that they were not entitled to qualified immunity on these remaining claims. Defendants also contend that summary judgment should have issued on the pendent state claims because there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to those claims. On the facts as we must take them on this interlocutory appeal, the district court properly ruled that Jones is not entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 and state-law battery claims. However, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity under Kentucky law on the state-law negligence and gross negligence claims. Finally, on this interlocutory appeal we lack jurisdiction to address the defendant’s arguments for dismissal of the remaining state-law claims.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
WCI, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; OHIO LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 20-3930
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton.
No. 3:17-cv-00282—Thomas M. Rose, District Judge.
Argued: May 26, 2021
Decided and Filed: November 17, 2021
Before: BOGGS, BATCHELDER, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Nude dancing is not allowed at strip clubs with an Ohio liquor license. So when WCI, Inc. let its employees at Cheeks Gentlemen’s Club perform fully nude in the presence of undercover agents, the Ohio Liquor Control Commission issued an order presenting WCI with a choice: pay a $25,000 fine or have its liquor license revoked. WCI appealed the order in the Ohio court system and lost. Displeased with that outcome, WCI filed a complaint in federal court alleging numerous constitutional violations and seeking money damages along with declaratory and injunctive relief.

In an earlier appeal, we affirmed the district court’s dismissal of several of WCI’s constitutional claims, so that only the claims alleging violations of the Due Process Clause and the Excessive Fines Clause remained. On remand, the district court dismissed those remaining claims for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
MIKE KOWALL; ROGER KAHN; PAUL OPSOMMER; JOSEPH HAVEMAN; DAVID E. NATHAN; SCOTT DIANDA; CLARK HARDER; MARY VALENTINE; DOUGLAS SPADE; MARK S. MEADOWS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
JOCELYN BENSON, in her official capacity as Secretary of State,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 21-1129
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:19-cv-00985—Janet T. Neff, District Judge.
Argued: October 20, 2021
Decided and Filed: November 17, 2021
Before: GILMAN, THAPAR, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. At the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin made the case for term limits. He argued that “in free governments, the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors and sovereigns. For the former therefore to return among the latter was not to degrade, but to promote them.” 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 120 (Max Farrand ed., 1911) (cleaned up). The people of Michigan had the same idea. They enacted term limits for their state legislators. Yet some veteran legislators didn’t take their “promotion” well. They sued, claiming term limits violate their constitutional rights. But it’s not our place to second-guess how Michiganders choose to design their state legislature.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
ROBERT SLOAT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HEWLETT-PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 20-6169
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.
No. 3:18-cv-00371—Curtis L. Collier, District Judge.
Argued: July 22, 2021
Decided and Filed: November 17, 2021
Before: BOGGS, CLAY, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Robert Sloat sued his former employer, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Company, asserting claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and the Tennessee Human Rights Act. The district court granted summary judgment to Hewlett-Packard, holding that Sloat lacked evidence supporting a prima facie case for his claims. We respectfully disagree and reverse.