Thursday, May 25, 2017

Cases --- May 21 through 27

Discrimination/Retaliation 

*Espinoza-Horiuchi v. Walmart Stores, Inc. (10th Cir., May 22, 2017) (dismissing appeal of summary judgment for lack of jurisdiction, and affirming the district court’s bill of costs)

Contract/Noncompete/Trade Secret/Wrongful Termination

Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon (U.S. Supreme Court, May 22, 2017) (vacating and remanding judgment in favor of Menon:  The Hague Service Convention does not prohimit service of process by mail, which is permissible if the receiving state has not objected to such service and it is authorized under otherwise-applicable law)

*Blough v. Rural Electric Coop, Inc. (10th Cir., May 23, 2017) (affirming grant of Rural Electric's motion to dismiss Blough's claim for wrongful termination because Blough failed to plausibly statea claim for relief)

Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease


Energy West Mining Company v. Estate of Morris Blackburn (10th Cir., May 23, 2017) (affirming Black Lung Benefits compensation claim and denying petition for review: the Labor Benefits Review Board did not err in affirming the award below)

*Hays v. Berryhill (10th Cir., May 25, 2017) (affirming denial of attorneys fees because the commisioner's decision was substantially justified)

*Lee v. Berryhill (10th Cir., May 25, 2017) (affirming denial of disability insurance and social security income because the appellate court may not reweigh evidence and the Frey/Thompson analysis was present)

*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. They may be cited, however, for persuasive value under Fed.R.App.P. 32.1 and 10th Cir.R. 32.1.

Tuesday, May 2, 2017

Cases --- April 23rd through 29th

Discrimination/Retaliation



Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease



*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. They may be cited, however, for persuasive value under Fed.R.App.P. 32.1 and 10th Cir.R. 32.1.

Monday, April 24, 2017

Cases --- April 16th through 22nd

Discrimination/Retaliation

*Agassounon v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc. (10th Cir., April 18, 2017) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Defendant on Agassounon's race, color, national origin, and retaliation claims, because he failed to demonstrate pretext in Jeppesen Sanderson's laying him off)

*Arbogast v. State of Kansas, Dept. of Labor (10th Cir., April 21, 2017) (affirming dismissal of Arbogast's complaint for discrimination and retaliation for lack of personal jurisdiction )

*Crews v. Paine (10th Cir., April 21, 2017) (affirming denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity for Paine, but remanding for further consideration of Eaton’s motion because Crews showed no evidence of discriminatory animus)

*Forbes v. Kinder Morgan, Inc. (10th Cir., April 21, 2017) (even if Kinder violated its own policies, Forbes failed to prove Kinder's firing decision was a pretext)

ERISA and Employee Pension Plans

Coventry Health Care v. Nevils (U.S. Supreme Court, April 18, 2017) ("Because contractual subrogation and reimbursement prescriptionsplainly 'relate to . . . payments with respect to benefits,' ... they override state laws barring subrogation and reimbursement.)

*Zander v. Knight Transportation, Inc. (10th Cir., April 18, 2017) (affirming dismissal of Zander's frivolous pro se action because he refused to appear for deposition and his brief was nearly unintelligible)

Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease

*Anders v. Berryhhill (10th Cir., April 18, 2017) (affirming denial of disability benefits because there was no improper deviation from the Occupational Outlook Handbook)

*Brownrigg v. Berryhill (10th Cir., April 19, 2017) (reversing and remanding denial of benefits:  the ALJ inadequately evaluated Brownrigg's complaint, he did not apply the correct test or sufficiently articulate his reasoning, and his discussion of the medical evidence was too minimal to show freedom from error)


*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. They may be cited, however, for persuasive value under Fed.R.App.P. 32.1 and 10th Cir.R. 32.1.