CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

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.


Nos. 09-5113/5136

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.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

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.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

CORY COLVIN,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL SHEETS, Warden, Ross Correctional Institution,
Respondent-Appellant.


No. 08-4353

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.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

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.