June 26, 2019

Tenth Circuit: Opinions, 6/23/10

The Tenth Circuit on Wednesday issued four published opinions and seven unpublished opinions.

Published

In Trout v. Drive Financial Services, L.P., the Court affirmed the bankruptcy court and appellate panel decision that Petitioner trustee was not entitled to a money judgment. Petitioner had successfully avoided a preferential vehicle lien, returning the estate to its pre-transfer status as including a depreciating asset and an unsecured obligation to lender. A further money judgment would be inappropriate.

In Narotzky v. Natrona County Memorial Hospital Board of Trustees, the Court affirmed the district court’s granting summary judgment against Petitioners’ due process and Fourth Amendment claims. Insufficient facts were presented to support petitioners’ constructive discharge claim under procedural due process; while Petitioners’ may have had a property interest in existing staff privileges, Petitioners had alternatives to resigning; constructive discharge involves more than a “mutually intolerable working environment.” As to Petitioners’ Fourth Amendment claim, the search of their lockers was not improper; the search was conducted with probable cause and was reasonable in its inception and scope, outweighing Petitioners’ expectation of privacy.

In Thomas v. Parker, the Court affirmed the district court’s decisions regarding inmate Petitioner’s confinement by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. “Both this court and the district court previously rejected [Petitioner’s] arguments about the ODOC grievance process and put him on notice that he should not rely on his own contrary interpretations of the process to claim exhaustion.” Petitioner’s motions contained only frivolous arguments and were rejected.

In United States v. Hasan, vacated in part and affirmed in part the district court’s decision regarding the issue of perjury by the Petitioner. While the Court found that a reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Petitioner committed perjury, the district court did not apply the appropriate legal standard regarding Petitioner’s rights before the grand jury. The Court remanded the issue back to the district court to determine if Petitioner’s rights were violated under the Court Interpreter’s Act by failing to provide him with an interpreter on his appearances; a determination must be made as to whether Petitioner “speaks . . . primarily a language other than English.”

Unpublished

Miller v. Kansas Highway Patrol

Cedrins v. USCIS

Painter v. City of Albuquerque

Jones v. Jones

Tubbs v. Harrison

Cedrins v. Central New Mexico Community College

United States v. Uman

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Speak Your Mind

*