The case involved South Bend taxpayers seeking to prevent the city from transferring a parcel of land purchased for $1.2 million to a Catholic high school in exchange for limited community access to athletic facilities. The court decided to grant an injunction against the transfer. The core reasoning was that the transaction would provide a substantial benefit to a religious institution without neutral criteria or independent decision-making by third parties, which a reasonable observer would perceive as government endorsement of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
In Jennings v. United States, Keith Jennings filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his conviction and 360-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, claiming the sentencing court wrongly classified a prior Indiana conviction for resisting law enforcement as a crime of violence and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to convey a plea offer and for not raising an argument under Rita v. United States on direct appeal. The district court denied the petition without a hearing. The court reasoned that affidavits showed no plea offer existed, the law-of-the-case doctrine barred relitigating the career-offender determination already affirmed on direct appeal, Rita had not been held retroactive on collateral review, and appellate counsel's choice of issues caused no prejudice because the sentence rested on statutory factors rather than any guidelines presumption.
This case involves a contract dispute between Lafayette Life Insurance Company and its Errors and Omissions insurer, Arch Insurance Company, over coverage for multiple lawsuits filed by policyholders against Lafayette Life arising from deceptive sales practices by its agent, Gerald Kloppe. Lafayette Life sought partial summary judgment on its claim that Arch breached the policy by refusing to defend or indemnify those claims. The court granted the motion in part, holding that Arch breached the contract as to the first twelve claims because the policy's vicarious liability coverage applied and Exclusions A and C did not bar coverage. The court reasoned that the record contained no evidence that Lafayette Life knew of or participated in the agent's misconduct before the policy period, so the exclusions for intentional acts or known wrongful conduct were inapplicable, and the insurer could not rely on an unproven accusation of direct wrongdoing by Lafayette Life. The court left open issues of notice and cooperation for the remaining nine claims, along with bad faith and damages.
This multidistrict litigation consolidated class actions in which FedEx Ground drivers, operating under independent contractor agreements, sought reclassification as employees under state laws to recover business expenses and overtime wages. Building on its earlier Kansas decision granting summary judgment to FedEx, the court reviewed the remaining state cases using only evidence common to all drivers—the Operating Agreement and generally applicable policies—due to the class certification and MDL posture. The court granted summary judgment to FedEx in nearly all remaining cases, holding that the drivers qualified as independent contractors based on the absence of a right to control work methods, lack of at-will termination authority, drivers' responsibility for acquiring equipment, and the presence of entrepreneurial opportunities. The decisions were limited to the generalized claims presented and did not address potential outcomes under different procedural postures or individualized evidence.
This case concerns an Allen County, Indiana ordinance regulating 'itinerant medical providers'—physicians living outside the county or contiguous counties without local hospital admitting privileges—who perform surgical or invasive procedures. The ordinance mandates emergency contact disclosures, patient notifications, record-keeping, and compliance certifications to promote patient safety and follow-up care, prompted by concerns over out-of-town physicians lacking accountability. Abortion clinic Fort Wayne Women's Health and Dr. Klopfer sought a preliminary injunction against enforcement, arguing violations including privacy and equal protection, while the county moved to dismiss. The court denied the motion to dismiss and granted a partial preliminary injunction, barring enforcement of provisions requiring patients to sign notification forms, retention of those forms, government review of patient notifications, and reporting of unredacted patient information, due to privacy implications under relevant constitutional balancing tests, while allowing other aspects like basic contact disclosures to stand.
This case concerned whether FedEx Ground package delivery drivers qualified as employees or independent contractors under the Kansas Wage Payment Act. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted FedEx's cross-motion, holding that the drivers were independent contractors as a matter of law. The decision rested on the Operating Agreements, which labeled the drivers as contractors and allowed them to hire helpers, sell routes, use their vehicles for other purposes, and operate with significant autonomy over the manner of their work while FedEx controlled only the results. Additional factors included the parties' stated intent to form an independent contractor relationship and the absence of at-will termination rights for FedEx. The ruling was based on the right to control under the contracts rather than actual day-to-day practices.