DISCLAIMER: The following unofficial case summaries are prepared by the clerk's office
as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.
141421P.pdf 11/26/2014 United States v. Adam Chartier U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-1421 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids [PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Bye, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law. The police had an articulable and objectively reasonable suspicion that a motorist without a valid license was operating a vehicle, and the officer's decision to make a traffic stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment; the officer had the necessary suspicion to expand the scope and range of the stop once he saw muriatic acid and tubing in the car, and the use of a drug dog was permissible; the officer's knowledge of defendant's history and the facts of the stop justified a pat-down search for purposes of officer safety; fact that the officer could not find drugs in the car after the dog alerted justified a search of defendant's person since those facts made it more likely that any drugs that had been in the car were on defendant's person. 141562U.pdf 11/26/2014 Stephen Curtiss v. Mary Benson U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-1562 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Bowman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. The defendant nurses were entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity on plaintiff's claim for damages based on the denial of dentures, as there was nothing in the record to suggest that either defendant knew and ignored that plaintiff was in pain, much less severe pain, as a result of his lack of teeth. 142694U.pdf 11/26/2014 Addones Spencer v. Tara Hall U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-2694 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Bivens action. The district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's Bivens action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 146016P.pdf 11/26/2014 GE Capital Commercial, Inc. v. Sylva Corporation, Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-6016 U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis [PUBLISHED] [Saladino, Author, with Federman, Chief Judge, and Shodeen, Bankruptcy Judge] Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. The written record supports GE Capital's request that its motion seeking an administrative expense claim be considered under 11 U.S.C. Section 365, and the bankruptcy court, by declining to consider the motion under 11 U.S.C. Section 365(d)(5), shifted the burden of proof from the objecting party to the claimant, which was erroneous as a matter of law; remanded for further proceedings.