|
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, fka The Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois; TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, fka The Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. HILLERICH & BRADSBY COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.
No. 05-00533—John G. Heyburn II, District Judge.
Argued: January 20, 2010
Decided and Filed: March 12, 2010
Before: SILER, MOORE, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.
CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America and Travelers Casualty & Surety Company (together “Travelers”), and Defendant, Hillerich & Bradsby Co., Inc. (“Hillerich”) cross-appeal a series of orders entered by the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky resolving cross-motions for summary judgment. First, the district court ruled that Travelers has a right to seek reimbursement for settlement costs paid in the underlying litigation and that the underlying litigation did not include a disparagement claim at the time of settlement. The district court also ruled that Travelers’ duty to defend Hillerich began with the First Amended Complaint filed on November 8, 1999. Pre-judgment interest was awarded to Travelers at 8% simple interest and no pre-judgment interest was awarded to Hillerich. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude the district court’s orders should be AFFIRMED in their entirety.
|
CORY COLVIN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. MICHAEL SHEETS, Warden, Ross Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellant. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 06-00681—John D. Holschuh, District Judge.
Argued: January 19, 2010
Decided and Filed: March 12, 2010
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, McKEAGUE, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments bars retrial following a declaration of mistrial unless the defendant consented to the mistrial or there was a “manifest necessity” for the mistrial. In this habeas appeal brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Respondent Michael Sheets challenges the district court’s conclusion that the state court unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent when it determined that the state trial court’s declaration of a mistrial was manifestly necessary and therefore not a violation of Colvin’s Fifth Amendment rights. We REVERSE.