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.
131766P.pdf   07/17/2014  BVS, Inc.  v.  CDW Direct, LLC
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-1766
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids    
   [PUBLISHED] [Bye, Author, with Bright and Smith, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Contracts. Plaintiff's original purchase order constituted an 
   offer and defendant accepted that offer when it sent a purchase order to 
   its subcontractor; the district court erred, however, when it ruled, as a 
   matter of law, that defendant's invoice - sent after offer and acceptance 
   had already created a contract - integrated the contract with respect to 
   terms, such as warranty disclaimers, not included in plaintiff's offer or 
   defendant's acceptance; remanded for further proceedings. 
  
132313P.pdf   07/17/2014  New York Marine & General Ins.  v.  Continental Cement Company
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-2313
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis    
   [PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Wollman and Gruender, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Insurance. In this action to determine coverage for a sunken 
   barge where the insurer denied coverage on the ground the insured had 
   failed to disclose the condition of the barge as required by the insured's 
   duty to exercise the utmost good faith, the district court did not err in 
   determining that the doctrine of utmost good faith is such a judicially 
   established federal admiralty rule that it applied to this maritime 
   insurance dispute rather than Missouri state law; defendant waived its 
   appeal of the denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law on the 
   insurer's utmost good faith defense by failing to file a postverdict 
   motion under Rule 50(b) after the district court denied its Rule 50(a) 
   motion; assuming defendant did not waive its challenge to the jury 
   instruction on the defense of utmost good faith, the instruction 
   adequately and fairly presented the issues, including the question of 
   whether the undisclosed facts were material to calculation of the risk and 
   the terms of the coverage. 
  
132337P.pdf   07/17/2014  United States  v.  Jeffrey Anderson
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-2337
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln    
   [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Wollman and Gruender, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law. Where defendant transmitted a "morphed 
   image" containing the face of a juvenile superimposed onto the body of an 
   adult female engaged in intercourse, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2252A(a)(2)(A) and 
   2256(8)(C) are constitutional as applied to defendant's conduct because 
   the government has a compelling interest in protecting minors from the 
   significant harms associated with morphed images and the criminal 
   prohibition is narrowly drawn. 
  
132521P.pdf   07/17/2014  Twin City Pipe Trades Service  v.  O'Laughlin Plumbing & Heating
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-2521
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis    
   [PUBLISHED] [Bye, Author, with Wollman and Benton, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Labor law. In an action to collect fringe benefits allegedly 
   owed to union employee benefit funds, the district court erred in finding 
   the employer had unequivocally terminated its participation in a 
   collective bargaining agreement with the funds and was not obligated to 
   contribute fringe benefits for its employees; the employer's continued 
   contributions manifested an intent to abide by and be bound by the CBA and 
   the two letters the employer sent were ineffective to express an 
   unequivocal intent to terminate because they failed to provide clear and 
   explicit notice of intent to terminate; remanded for further proceedings 
   as to the amounts owed. 
  
132589P.pdf   07/17/2014  United States  v.  Justin Lee Howard
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-2589
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls    
   [PUBLISHED] [Kelly, Author, with Colloton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. Where the extortion charged in the case took 
   place on July 16-17, 2012, pre-July 16 conduct could be considered as 
   relevant conduct at sentencing as it was undertaken in preparation for the 
   offense; however, the pre-July 16 conduct cannot give rise to liability 
   for restitution and the only loss incurred during the dates of conviction 
   was the $100 provided by law; as a result, the restitution award must be 
   stricken from the judgment. 
  
133287P.pdf   07/17/2014  Wendy Fiero  v.  CSG Systems, Inc.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-3287
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha    
   [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Loken and Beam, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Employment discrimination. Assuming, without deciding that 
   plaintiff established a prima facie case of gender discrimination, her 
   employer offered a legitimate, non-discriminatory justification for 
   terminating her employment which plaintiff failed to show was a pretext 
   for gender discrimination; similarly, she failed to show the stated ground 
   was a pretext for retaliation based on her assertion of her Title VII 
   rights. 
  
133487P.pdf   07/17/2014  Diane Packard  v.  Falls City Area Jaycees
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-3487
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln    
   [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Beam and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Torts. In a negligence and wrongful death action arising out 
   of a traffic accident, the district court did not err in granting 
   defendant summary judgment as defendant did not have a duty to control the 
   traffic at a public highway intersection near its event at the time the 
   accident occurred. 
  
133494U.pdf   07/17/2014  United States  v.  Oscar Lee
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-3494
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Bye, Colloton, and Benton, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not err in 
   sentencing defendant as an armed career criminal. 
  
133543P.pdf   07/17/2014  United States  v.  John Woolsey, Jr.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-3543
   U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota - Fargo    
   [PUBLISHED] [Melloy, Author, with Murphy and Benton, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Prosecution for both being a 
   felon in possession of a firearm and being a felon in possession of 
   ammunition does not violate the bar on multiplicitous prosecutions as the 
   items were acquired at separate times and in separate places, thereby 
   providing two separate "units of prosecution;" in any event, defendant 
   could not show any prejudice as the counts were grouped for sentencing and 
   he received a below-guidelines sentence; constitutional challenge to 18 
   U.S.C. Sec. 922(g)(1) rejected. 
  
133726U.pdf   07/17/2014  Sherman Meirovitz  v.  Anthony Haynes
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-3726
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Murphy, Bowman and Benton, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Prisoner case - Habeas. Dismissal of Section 2241 petition was appropriate 
   as plaintiff failed to show the section 2255 remedy was inadequate or 
   ineffective. 
  
133748U.pdf   07/17/2014  Lawrence Coleman  v.  Larry Crawford
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-3748
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Bye, Colloton and Benton, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. Plaintiff made a sufficient 
   demonstration of imminent danger and the district court erred in 
   dismissing the complaint preservice under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(g).