United States Tenth Circuit - September 2001 Opinion Summaries

ECHO ACCEPTANCE CORP. v. HOUSEHOLD RETAIL SERV., INC.

Commercial Law
Colo. Rev. Stat. 38-10-124, a financing agreement that provides for the purchase of commercial paper is not a not a "financial accommodation" and...

FAUSTIN v. CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO

Constitutional Law
The fact that the overpass, which contains a roadway and a sidewalk, is suspended does not disqualify it as a traditional public forum.

US v. HANNAH

Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing
Under USSG 4A1.3, the directive to proceed incrementally down the sentencing table does not require that express findings be made concerning each...

THIESSEN v. GEN. ELEC. CAPITAL CORP.

Class Actions, Labor & Employment Law
Under 29 USC 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, a court may use the ad hoc approach in determining whether plaintiffs in an ADEA action...

SHARP v. WEBCO INDUS., INC.

Labor & Employment Law
In an unfair labor practice claim alleging the employer discriminated against union supporters in making lay-offs, a court may temporarily enjoin the...

US v. ROCKWELL INT'L CORP.

Government Contracts
A relator need not have direct and independent knowledge of the actual fraudulent submission to the government under the False Claims Act to be an...

STIDHAM v. PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS & TRAINING

Civil Rights
Allegation that a state peace officer licensing agency unlawfully dispensed information about a peace officer is sufficient to state a claim for...

SWONGER v. SURFACE TRANSP. BD.

Labor & Employment Law, Transportation
Seniority rights are not "rights, privileges, and benefits" under 49 USC 11326 and thus can be modified upon merger of railroad companies.

MARTINEZ v. UPHOFF

Civil Rights
Allegations of prison overcrowding, failure to properly train and to supervise prison employees in safety measures, excessive turnover in employees...

KINNELL v. GRAVES

Civil Rights
The "three strikes" prohibition against prisoners filing frivolous lawsuits, 28 USC 1915(g), is not unconstitutionally vague.