The case concerned Dana Deegan's federal sentence for second-degree murder after she committed neonaticide by killing her newborn infant. The Eighth Circuit issued an order denying both en banc rehearing and panel rehearing of its prior decision that had upheld the district court's within-guidelines sentence of more than ten years. Dissenting judges contended that the Sentencing Commission had never considered neonaticide when developing the second-degree murder guidelines, that the prosecutor and district court had therefore misapplied the guidelines, and that the resulting sentence was unreasonable and disparate compared with other neonaticide cases; the majority of the court nevertheless declined to rehear the matter.
In Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the court issued an order denying a petition for rehearing en banc as well as a petition for panel rehearing. Four judges dissented from the denial of en banc rehearing, contending that the panel decision interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act renders a statutory provision superfluous, overlooks EEOC guidance, and conflicts with the Supreme Court's recognition in US Airways v. Barnett that preferences can serve statutory goals. The underlying dispute concerns the scope of an employer's obligation to provide reassignment as a reasonable accommodation for a disabled employee.
The case involved a declaratory judgment action by Northwest Airlines against American Airlines regarding Northwest's hiring of certain American employees, with American counterclaiming for tortious interference with employment contracts, misappropriation of trade secrets in finance and yield management, and copyright infringement of materials like spill tables. The court addressed multiple motions, including Northwest's request for partial reconsideration of a summary judgment denial on misappropriation claims, to strike American's opposition memorandum and evidence obtained after discovery deadlines, for a determination that alleged trade secrets became public on July 7, 1993, and for summary judgment on the copyright claim. It denied the motion to strike, finding that evidence from ORSA obtained via subpoena was not untimely under the circumstances since Northwest had requested related discovery and was aware of the process, and that protective order issues did not warrant exclusion. The court also considered affidavits and documents related to whether materials were publicly disclosed or confidential, while noting that certain copyright registration and impoundment issues were moot or distinct from the trade secret elements.
This case involves an appeal by Northwest Airlines from a magistrate judge's order in a lawsuit against American Airlines concerning discovery disputes and amendments to pleadings in a trade secrets action related to airline yield management systems. The district court reviewed the magistrate's decisions under a clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard and affirmed the order compelling further deposition testimony from Northwest's expert witness Dr. Belobaba on the basis of his expertise and prior statements, as well as the decision permitting American to amend its pleadings to seek punitive damages on claims for misappropriation of trade secrets and tortious interference with employee confidentiality under Minnesota law. The court reversed the imposition of sanctions and costs against Northwest, finding that its counsel's objections during the deposition were based on a good faith interpretation of the prior order and that the line between fact and expert testimony had not been clearly drawn. The core reasoning emphasized American's right to test the expert's knowledge while limiting the scope to avoid converting him into a fact witness, and the existence of a prima facie showing for punitive damages based on evidence of deliberate disregard.
The case involved the Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians asserting rights under an 1837 treaty to hunt, fish, and gather off-reservation in Minnesota, with the state, counties, and individual landowners challenging those rights and related court rulings on conservation regulations. After a trial resolved many key issues, defendant-intervenors filed post-trial motions seeking reconsideration and amendment of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, a new trial, reinstatement of previously dismissed counterclaims against the United States, and an injunction barring the Band from activities violating state and federal conservation laws. The court denied all motions, explaining that the arguments had already been fully litigated and resolved on the existing record and evidence, no new grounds or evidence justified reconsideration or a new trial, and the movants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, likelihood of success on the merits, or other factors warranting injunctive relief.
This case was a tax refund action brought by members of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians seeking return of federal income taxes paid on proceeds from logging timber on tribal trust lands under permits issued by the Tribe. The plaintiffs contended that the Treaty of Greenville and related treaties exempted such income from taxation by guaranteeing the Tribe's right to quiet enjoyment of its lands without molestation from the United States. After transfer from the District of Columbia, the court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment on the refund claims. The court reasoned that federal income tax applies to all income unless a treaty or statute provides an express exemption, that the cited treaties contain no definite tax exemption language, and that exemptions cannot be inferred from general treaty provisions or the source of the income.
