CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
SAFETY SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; SAFETY
NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY,
Plaintiffs-Appellees (22-1189),
Plaintiffs-Appellants (22-1196),
v.
GENESEE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS;
DEBORAH CHERRY,
Defendants-Appellants (22-1189),
THOMAS A. FOX; TAMMY PUCHLAK, as Trustee of the
Walter Puchlak Revocable Trust Agreement dated
February 24, 2010,
Defendants-Appellees (22-1196). |
Nos. 22-1189/1196 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City.
No. 1:20-cv-13290—Thomas L. Ludington, District Judge.
Argued: October 19, 2022
Decided and Filed: November 21, 2022
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; BOGGS and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
BOGGS, Circuit Judge. This insurance-coverage dispute springs from two class-action
lawsuits against several Michigan counties that retained surplus proceeds from the taxforeclosure sales of private property. Genesee County was named as a defendant in the lawsuits
and claimed coverage under two liability-insurance policies. The County’s insurers, Safety
National Casualty Company and Safety Specialty Insurance Company (together, “Safety”),
denied the claim and filed this declaratory-judgment action in federal court against both the
County and the underlying class representatives. The district court agreed with Safety that it has
no duty to defend or indemnify the County from the lawsuits, but dismissed Safety’s case against
the class representatives for lack of federal jurisdiction. We affirm. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SETH T. WINDHAM,
Defendant-Appellant. |
No. 21-3881 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Akron.
No. 5:21-cr-00160-1—James S. Gwin, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: November 21, 2022
Before: COLE, CLAY, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
CLAY, Circuit Judge. In May 2021, Defendant Seth Windham pleaded guilty to federal
kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201. Windham now argues on appeal that no factual
basis supported his guilty plea, and that he was unaware of the nature of the charges against him.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court AFFIRMS Windham’s conviction based on the
district court’s acceptance of Windham’s guilty plea. |
|