Plaintiff David Brown appealed the dismissal of his action challenging his ban from using public transportation provided by the Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority ("MTTA"). Brown claimed violations of his federal and state constitutional rights. Brown sued the MTTA over a series of events in 2007 in which he was alleged to have been disruptive, intoxicated behaved badly. Initially Brown brought suit in state court. That case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. He then refiled the case with the federal district court. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the MTTA as well as defendants J.D. Eppler, Ray Willard, Jane Doe, and Janet Doe (collectively "employee defendants"). In so doing, the court concluded Brown did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in access to MTTA services. Upon review of the matter, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal on Brown's procedural due process claim; the district court judgment was affirmed in all other respects, and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Brown v. Eppler, et al" on Justia Law

This case concerned challenges to the 2011 Hours of Service (HOS) rule issued by the FMCSA. In Case No. 12-1092, ATA asserted that the new safety-oriented provisions in the final HOS rule were overly restrictive and costly. In Case No., 12-1113, Public Citizen claimed that the rule was insufficiently protective of public safety. The court concluded that what remains of the 2003 Final Rule after two remands and three rulemakings were highly technical points best left to the agency. Therefore, the court generally affirmed the rule and vacated only the agency's application of the 30-minute break to short-haul drivers where the agency failed to explain its decision under the requirements of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n of the United States v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. View "American Trucking Ass'ns v. FMCSA, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a truck driver for Red Racks, which was operated by DAV, filed suit under section 306 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA-LU) Technical Corrections Act (TCA), Pub. L. 110-244, Title III, section 306, 122 Stat. 1572, 1620, claiming that he was a "covered" employee eligible for overtime. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the district court properly determined that a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1), covered employee under the TCA was one driving a vehicle with a gross motor vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. The district court also correctly determined that plaintiff was not a covered employee, where the trucks he drove actually weighed less than 10,000 pounds, and properly granted summary judgment to DAV and denied partial summary judgment to plaintiff. View "McCall v. Disabled American Veterans, et al." on Justia Law

After plaintiff was involved in a verbal altercation with Defendant Leifer, Leifer used plaintiff's license plate number to obtain the name and home address of plaintiff. Leifer then embarked on a campaign to harass plaintiff and his family. Plaintiff filed suit under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 2721-2725, against Leifer and the entities and individuals who obtained the information from the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles and released it to Leifer. The court held that Defendant Resellers were not strictly liable for Leifer's improper use of plaintiff's personal information because neither the text nor the legislative history of the Act supported a reading of a strict liability standard into the Act; while Defendant Softech disclosed plaintiff's personal information for a permitted use, a material question of fact existed as to the propriety of the disclosure; the Act imposed a duty on resellers to exercise reasonable care in responding to requests for personal information drawn from motor vehicle records; nothing in the record suggested that, in complying with the information request, Softech acted unreasonably; and a reasonable jury could find that Arcanum failed to exercise reasonable care when it disclosed plaintiff's personal information to Leifer. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court to the extent it granted summary judgment in favor of Softech and Rodriquez, vacated the judgment to the extent it granted summary judgment in favor of Arcanum and Cohn on plaintiff's claims under the Act, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gordon v. Softech Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

Shipper engaged Common Carrier to transport computer equipment belonging to Company. Company claimed the shipment was damaged on arrival, and Common Carrier refused to pay the amount that Company claimed Common Carrier had agreed to settle the claim for. Company asserted a claim against Shipper, whose Insurer paid Company. As subrogee, Insurer sued Common Carrier for breach of the settlement agreement. Insurer avoided removal to federal court by not asserting a cargo-damage claim, but, on remand, amended its petition to assert one. Common Carrier contended the cargo-damage claim was barred by limitations because Insurer filed it more than four years after Common Carrier rejected Company's claim. Insurer argued the cargo-damage claim related back to its original action for breach of the settlement agreement and thus was timely filed. The trial court agreed and rendered judgment against Common Carrier. The court of appeals held the cargo-damage claim did not relate back and was therefore barred by limitations. The Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment for Insurer, holding that Insurer's cargo-damage claim was not barred by limitations, as the cargo-damage claim and breach-of-settlement claim both arose out of the same occurrence and, therefore, the relation-back doctrine applied.View "Lexington Ins. Co. v. Daybreak Express, Inc." on Justia Law

Zimmerman was riding his motorcycle on an evening in 2008 and approached a railroad crossing. It was dark and a building obscured the tracks. When he was less than 76 feet away, he noticed a train approaching. He tried to stop, but his front brake locked and he flew over the handlebars, colliding with a locomotive and leaving him partially paralyzed. He sued Norfolk, asserting state tort claims. The district court entered summary judgment for the railroad, citing preemption by the Federal Railroad Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 20106. The Third Circuit affirmed with respect to a claim that the railroad was negligent per se for violating requirements in 23 C.F.R. 646.214(b), which states that crossings with limited sight distance and high train speeds must have adequate warning devices, defined by statute as automatic gates and flashing lights. The court reversed with respect to claims that the railroad negligently failed to warn him of the approaching train; negligently maintained the crossing devices, particularly a sign that warned of the approaching crossing that was covered by tree branches, pavement markings that no longer existed, and crossbucks had been allowed to fall into disrepair; and failed to provide adequate sight distance.View "Zimmerman v. Norfolk S. Corp." on Justia Law

Almy lives in Indiana. He began working for Kickert School Bus Line in 2000, at a terminal located in Illinois. He picked up children at private schools in Illinois and took them to homes in Indiana, drove charter trips for Illinois schools, and would occasionally pick up children at Illinois schools and drive them to Indiana. Almy believed that Kickert was under-paying him because, under the collective bargaining agreement, he did not receive a higher hourly rate of pay for overtime, even though he worked more than 40 hours per week; he was not paid for the 20 minutes it took him to prepare his bus each morning or for time required for fueling, cleaning, and paperwork; and was not paid during charter trips for time it took to drive the empty bus to the school and then back to the bus terminal. Kickert began providing overtime pay in 2008. Almy sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act for back pay. The district court entered summary judgment for his former employer. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, based on an exemption from overtime provisions for interstate drivers whose maximum hours are regulated by the Department of Transportation, 29 U.S.C. 213(b)(1). View "Almy v. Kickert Sch. Bus Line, Inc" on Justia Law

The Federal Highway Administration and the Indiana Department of Transportation decided to complete an Indiana segment of I-69, which will eventually run from Canada to Mexico. Environmentalists opposed the route and sued under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344, which authorizes the Army Corps of Engineers to issue permits for discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters of the United States. A permit will be denied if there is “a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem,” 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a), or if the discharge “would be contrary to the public interest.” 33 C.F.R. 320.4(a)(1). The permit at issue allows six streams to be filled where the highway crosses them and permits destruction of wetlands. The environmentalists proposed, in the alternative, simply upgrading to federal interstate highway standards, and existing route. In an environmental impact statement, the Corps concluded that no less environmentally damaging alternative was practicable, that the project was not contrary to the public interest, that damage to wetlands would be modest and would be offset by creation of new wetlands. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the environmental analysis. View "Hoosier Envtl. Council, v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his former employers (collectively, the "MTA") dispute whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of a special adjustment board. At issue was whether a party waived a challenge to the jurisdiction of a special adjustment board by explicitly conceding before the board that the board had jurisdiction. The court affirmed under these circumstances, holding that plaintiff conceded the Board's jurisdiction in his submission to the Board and the court declined to consider his waived jurisdictional challenge. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Sokolwski v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority" on Justia Law

Columbus motorists reported a person driving erratically. One saw that the driver was a woman and that there was a child in the truck. Both witnessed the truck jump onto the median at least twice. One followed the truck, trying to help the police locate it. The truck crashed into a tree. At the scene, the police found Volpe, intoxicated and trapped behind the steering wheel. Volpe’s daughter, ejected from the truck, died days later from multiple injuries. Volpe was convicted on two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide (operating a vehicle while under the influence (OVI) and recklessly causing her daughter’s death), each with a specification that she had been convicted of three or more OVI or equivalent offenses within the last six years, and of OVI with a specification that she had been convicted of five or more equivalent offenses within the last 20 years. Volpe received a total prison term of 20 years and six months. She argued that convictions of both OVI, Ohio Rev. Code 4511.19(A)(1)(a), and aggravated vehicular homicide as a proximate result of OVI, 2903.06(A)(1)(a), violated the federal Double Jeopardy Clause. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rejection of her habeas corpus petition.View "Volpe v. Trim" on Justia Law