Danny C. Reeves

This case involves AT&T Kentucky challenging orders from the Kentucky Public Service Commission that required the company, as an incumbent local exchange carrier, to continue providing certain network elements to competitive carriers like SouthEast at regulated rates after the FCC eliminated unbundling obligations under Section 251 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Commission had relied on Section 271 to set rates just above the prior TELRIC levels for these delisted elements. The court granted in part and denied in part AT&T Kentucky's request for declaratory and injunctive relief, finding that state commissions lack authority to enforce or set rates under Section 271, which is reserved for the FCC, and remanded the matter to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with that determination.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved Gladys Daily, a former Vice President and Branch Manager at American Founders Bank who was terminated in 2007 after nearly two years of employment, and who sued alleging age discrimination, sex discrimination, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted summary judgment in part by dismissing the defamation and emotional distress claims with prejudice, holding that the statutory discrimination claims preempted those tort claims. It denied summary judgment on the discrimination claims, however, after determining that Daily had satisfied administrative filing requirements for the sex discrimination claim, established a prima facie case of age discrimination, and produced evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the bank's proffered reason for termination—falsifying documents in violation of bank policy—was pretextual.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

This case involved defendant Juan Francisco Lopez, who was arrested for speeding in Kentucky; a search of his vehicle incident to arrest uncovered crack cocaine, scales, and a firearm, leading to federal charges for drug trafficking and carrying a firearm during a drug crime. Lopez entered a conditional guilty plea after the district court denied his motion to suppress the evidence under then-controlling precedent from New York v. Belton. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. Gant, which narrowed the scope of such searches, the Sixth Circuit remanded the case. The district court determined that the remand was general in scope, allowing the government to argue that the evidence should be admitted under the Leon good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, and that the government had not waived this argument by not raising it earlier. The court therefore scheduled further proceedings on the suppression issue.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a dispute among members of Vizterra, a Kentucky LLC formed to operate seasonal Halloween and Christmas stores, after the business dissolved in late 2007; the Kentucky plaintiffs alleged breach of the operating agreement by the Georgia-based defendants and sought an accounting, declaratory judgment, and damages, while parallel proceedings involving promissory notes were already underway in Georgia state court. The federal district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on preclusion grounds and their request to compel arbitration. It applied Colorado River abstention principles, concluding that the claims for an accounting and declaratory judgment implicated strong Kentucky state policy interests in LLC dissolution matters best handled by state courts, and therefore remanded those claims to Owen Circuit Court while staying the remaining breach-of-contract claims pending state-court resolution. The decision rested on the absence of a final judgment in the Georgia action and the need to avoid piecemeal adjudication of issues governed by Kentucky law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a challenge by American Express to a Kentucky statute, K.R.S. § 393.060(2), that shortened the presumptive abandonment period for uncashed traveler's checks from fifteen years to seven years, requiring the company to remit the funds to the state sooner. American Express argued that the law violated the Due Process, Takings, and Contract Clauses by interfering with its property and contractual interests in the investment proceeds from those funds. The court granted summary judgment to American Express on its substantive due process claim, finding the statute arbitrary and capricious because it lacked a rational relationship to any legitimate government objective and deprived the company of a protected property interest without due process. The court denied the Treasurer's cross-motion for summary judgment and did not reach the other constitutional claims.

business & regulatorypropertycivil rights

This case involves a dispute between BellSouth Telecommunications (AT&T Kentucky) and SouthEast Telephone over the proper pricing for network switching services under an interconnection agreement, following the FCC's elimination of certain unbundling requirements. AT&T Kentucky sought payment at the resale rates specified in the agreement, while SouthEast and the Kentucky Public Service Commission argued that § 271 of the Telecommunications Act allowed for different pricing. The court ruled in favor of AT&T Kentucky, directing the Commission to calculate the amount owed based on the interconnection agreement's resale rates, including any applicable charges. The reasoning centered on the fact that the parties had not negotiated a § 271 agreement, SouthEast had ordered services under the resale provision, and other carriers had successfully renegotiated agreements after the FCC's order.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case concerned Fort Thomas residents' challenge to city ordinances implementing a deer management plan, including bans on feeding deer and rules allowing limited bow hunting within city limits to address vehicle accidents, property damage, and public safety concerns from a growing deer population. The plaintiffs raised multiple claims under the U.S. and Kentucky constitutions, alleging the ordinances were arbitrary, vague, special legislation, preempted by state law, violative of the Commerce Clause, and improperly created penalties. The court granted the city's motion for summary judgment on all claims except the preemption issue regarding Ordinance § 91.51, reasoning that the ordinances were rationally related to legitimate governmental interests in public safety and nuisance control, did not infringe constitutional protections, and fell within municipal authority without conflicting with comprehensive state schemes.

environmentbusiness & regulatorycriminal law

This case concerns American Express's challenge to Kentucky laws, including provisions in the 2008 budget bill and a separate bill, that shortened the presumptive abandonment period for traveler's checks from 15 years to 7 years, allowing the state to claim the funds as unclaimed property. American Express alleged that these changes violated federal constitutional protections under the Due Process, Contract, and Takings Clauses, as well as similar state provisions and procedural rules for legislation. The court dismissed all claims against the Commonwealth and its Department of Treasury based on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, dismissed the state-law claims under Pennhurst, and allowed the federal constitutional claims against the Treasurer in his official capacity to proceed. It reasoned that the laws would apply retroactively to impair American Express's substantial property interest in funds acquired under the prior 15-year rule, and that Ex parte Young permitted prospective federal relief against the state official.

business & regulatorypropertycivil rightsprocedure

In United States v. Miller, the defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute marijuana and being an unlawful drug user in possession of firearms, and faced mandatory detention pending sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a) due to the drug charges carrying a potential ten-year sentence. Miller moved for release under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c), arguing exceptional reasons existed because he needed to help his wife and child relocate before sentencing. The court determined it had jurisdiction to consider the motion but concluded that no exceptional reasons justified release, as the family assistance claim did not meet the statutory standard, and denied the motion.

criminal lawprocedureguns

This case involves a dispute over a life insurance policy issued by Monumental Life Insurance Company to James Jones, with his mother Katherine Jones as beneficiary. After James's death, Monumental rescinded the policy and denied the claim upon discovering an undisclosed prior psychiatric hospitalization, asserting it would have declined coverage due to a history of schizophrenia. The plaintiff sued for policy benefits and bad faith, claiming the agent knew of the hospitalization, no schizophrenia diagnosis existed, and the denial was improper. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding policy coverage, the accuracy of the application process, the medical diagnosis, and whether Monumental acted with conscious wrongdoing in denying the claim.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case is an appeal by PHH Mortgage Services from a bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment to the trustee in an adversary proceeding. The underlying dispute concerns whether the trustee could avoid PHH's lien on a manufactured home under 11 U.S.C. § 544(a) as a hypothetical lien creditor or bona fide purchaser, where the home was included in a recorded mortgage but no certificate of title was issued and the parties had stipulated to relevant facts. The bankruptcy court held that Kentucky law required notation on the certificate of title to perfect the lien on the manufactured home and rejected any imputation of inquiry notice. The district court vacated the summary judgment and remanded, concluding that the factual record was insufficient to determine the applicability of imputed inquiry notice under Kentucky statutes governing manufactured homes that may have been converted to real property.

propertyprocedure

This case arose from a 2003 airplane crash in Kentucky that killed one child and injured others in the Zetter family during a flight arranged under an employment contract with Powersource. The plaintiffs pursued claims against Powersource and Phantom Leasing based on agency and vicarious liability theories for the pilot's alleged negligence. The court granted summary judgment to Powersource on the remaining agency claim and to Phantom Leasing on all claims, finding no genuine disputes of material fact. The decision rested on the absence of evidence supporting an agency relationship and the legal effect of the plaintiffs' prior release of the pilot, which would create an impermissible circuit of liability if vicarious recovery were allowed against the employer.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerns the termination of teacher David Dixon from the Harlan County School System after a 1995-96 incident in which he took photographs of a 17-year-old student without clothing above the waist during a yearbook photo session at his studio. A school tribunal found Dixon guilty of conduct unbecoming a teacher and upheld his termination; after an appeal and remand for resentencing that again upheld the termination, Dixon filed a federal lawsuit that was dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. Dixon moved for reconsideration, arguing errors in the handling of evidence, instructions to the tribunal, and procedural rulings under Kentucky law. The court denied the motion, finding no newly discovered evidence, no clear errors of law, and no basis to revisit the statute of limitations dismissal, as the underlying facts about the photographs and hearings remained undisputed.

labor & employmentprocedurecivil rights

The case involved Greg Queen, who was paralyzed in a 1993 workplace accident while employed by Dobson Power Line Construction Company, suing in state court to recover insurance payments made under a policy to his employer instead of to him. After years of state court proceedings, including an adverse partial summary judgment, the defendants removed the action to federal court claiming ERISA preemption of the state-law claims. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to Laurel Circuit Court, holding that removal was untimely. The core reasoning was that the original complaint provided notice that the claims might be removable under ERISA, so the 30-day removal clock had long expired, and the defendants had waived removal by actively litigating the case to an adverse ruling in state court.

procedurefederal powerlabor & employment

The case involved plaintiffs whose home was destroyed by fire, which they alleged originated from a fire on the defendants' adjacent vacant property that was an attractive nuisance. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiffs could not establish a connection between the two fires. The court granted the motion, dismissing all claims, because the plaintiffs failed to respond and provided no evidence linking the fires, relying instead on speculation, which is insufficient to create a material issue of fact.

propertytorts & liability

In this case, debtor Wendell Elza appealed a bankruptcy court order granting summary judgment to the United States and barring discharge of a prior civil judgment under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The underlying judgment arose from Elza's liability for 301 violations of the False Claims Act based on supplying nonconforming coal to the Department of Defense. The district court held that the bankruptcy court had misapplied principles of issue preclusion because the record from the earlier civil action did not establish that Elza acted with the specific intent to cause willful and malicious injury. The court therefore vacated the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings on whether the debt is nondischargeable.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

The case involved a former teacher, David Dixon, who was terminated from his position at Cumberland High School in 1996 after a tribunal found him guilty of conduct unbecoming a teacher for photographing a 17-year-old student partially nude. Dixon challenged the termination through state courts, leading to a re-sentencing hearing in 2005 that upheld his dismissal, and subsequently filed this federal lawsuit against various school officials and attorneys. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that Dixon's claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations, which began to run in August 1996 upon the initial termination, with no applicable exceptions or tolling.

civil rightsprocedurelabor & employment

The case involved Edward Kuss, owner of a pawn shop and licensed firearms dealer, who sought review of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' decision to revoke his federal firearms license after multiple inspections revealed violations of the Gun Control Act, including failures in record-keeping, background checks, and reporting requirements. The court granted the ATF's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Kuss's petition. It found no genuine issues of material fact, concluding that the administrative record showed the violations were willful because Kuss was aware of the legal requirements yet repeatedly failed to comply despite prior warnings. The court noted that Kuss had been represented by counsel at the administrative hearing and was given additional opportunities to submit evidence in the federal proceeding but did not do so.

gunsbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Pat Bradley sued the City of Prestonsburg and its mayor after her 2003 termination as executive director of a city-run arts center, alleging in state court that the firing was a wrongful discharge and breach of her employment contract under Kentucky law. She filed a parallel federal action adding claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for stigma, abuse of official power through a police investigation, and municipal policy violations. After the state court entered a directed verdict for the defendants and while Bradley's state appeal was pending, the federal district court considered whether res judicata barred the federal suit. The court held that the parties and causes of action were identical, the state judgment was final on the merits, and Bradley could have raised her federal claims in the state proceeding but did not, so all federal claims were precluded. The court therefore granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the entire action with prejudice and denied the remaining motions as moot.

civil rightsprocedurelabor & employment

In Doe v. Patton, plaintiff Jan Doe sought relief from a prior judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) and (3), which had dismissed her claims against Magoffin County and Paul Salyer on immunity grounds after she settled with defendant Lloyd Patton, the courthouse janitor who raped her during court-ordered community service. The motion relied on testimony from Patton's later criminal trial. The court denied the motion, determining that the new evidence did not demonstrate any constitutional violation by the county or its officials that would overcome immunity and thus had no impact on the prior analysis, while also addressing but resolving jurisdictional questions tied to the pending appeals.

civil rightsprocedure