Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Sixth Circuit Cases

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Federal Judiciary

: Sixth Circuit Cases

Dec. 22-26, 2008: US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Decisions

By Michael Stevens

ADVERTISEMENTS

PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0453p.06	Total Benefits Planning Agency v. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
08a0454p.06	USA v. Gross Eastern District of Tennessee of Chattanooga
08a0454p.06	USA v. Wilkins Eastern District of Tennessee of Chattanooga
08b0022p.06	In re: Randall J. Hake v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Youngstown
08a0455p.06	Warehouse Production and Maint v. Zenith Logistics, Inc. Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
08a0456p.06	Iroquois on the Beach, Inc. v. General Star Indemnity Company Western District of Michigan at Marquette MYRON H. BRIGHT, Circuit Judge. Appellant Iroquois on the Beach, Inc. (?Iroquois?), a seasonal hotel insured under an ?all risk? policy, appeals from the district court?s1 grant of summary judgment dismissing its claims against General Star Indemnity Company (?General Star?) for water and wind damage losses sustained to its building. The district court determined that exclusion B.2.f. of the insurance policy applied to preclude insurance coverage. The record without dispute established that continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water over a period of at least fourteen days caused the damages to the insured hotel and that this cause came within the above exclusion. We affirm.
08a0456p.06	Iroquois on the Beach, Inc. v. General Star Indemnity Company Western District of Michigan at Marquette
08a0457p.06	USA v. White Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington
08a0458p.06	Huber Winery v. Wilcher Western District of Kentucky at Louisville CLAY, Circuit Judge. Intervenor Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of Kentucky, Inc., appeals the district court?s grant of partial summary judgment to Plaintiffs Cherry Hill Vineyards, LLC, William G. Schneider, Jr., and John D. Reilly, Jr. Plaintiffs filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, successfully challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of Kentucky?s laws regulating small farm wineries. The district court ruled, pursuant to the Supreme Court?s decision in Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005), that the in-person purchase requirement in portions of Kentucky?s statutory scheme discriminated against interstate commerce by limiting the ability of out-of-state small farm wineries to sell and ship wine to Kentucky consumers. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
08a0459p.06	Peter Grain v. Trinity Health Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR
FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0775n.06	Austin v. SecureCare Inc Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0776n.06	USA v. Smith Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids
08a0777n.06	Taylor Chevrolet Inc v. Medical Mutual Services LLC Southern District of Ohio at Columbus
08a0778n.06	Kenneth Clack v. Rock-Tenn Company, Mill Divisi Eastern District of Tennessee of Chattanooga
08a0779n.06	Ndoci v. Mukasey Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0780n.06	Connolly v. Howes Western District of Michigan at Kalamazoo
08a0781n.06	Hurst v. Jackson Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0782n.06	USA v. Jackson Southern District of Ohio at Columbus
08a0783n.06	Panzie Smith v. Allstate Indemnity Company Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati COOK, Circuit Judge. Panzie Smith sued Allstate Indemnity Company (?Allstate?) for reimbursement of losses resulting from a house fire. Summary judgment proceedings and a jury verdict favored Allstate. Smith now appeals. I. A fire that began in the early morning, subsided, then rekindled several hours later destroyed Panzie Smith?s home on May 7, 2004. Smith immediately alerted her insurer, Allstate, precipitating an investigation that same day. An Allstate agent interviewed witnesses (including Smith, her husband, and neighbors), studied the fire?s origin, and assessed the damages. This process disclosed discrepancies about the cause and timing of the fire, the time the fire department arrived, and the true contents of the house. From its investigation, Allstate also learned that the Smiths had a strong financial motive to burn their home and ample opportunity. And most importantly, an outside investigator hired by Allstate determined that an intentional act caused the rekindle. Having considered all these factors, Allstate refused to pay Smith?s claim, relying on policy provisions excluding: (1) losses resulting from ?[i]ntentional or criminal acts of or at the direction of any insured person,? and (2) ?any loss or occurrence in which any insured person has concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance.? * * * Affirmed.
08a0784n.06	Dodson v. Wilkinson Southern District of Ohio at Columbus