|
DAVID L. BEST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.
No. 04-00294—C. Clifford Shirley, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
Argued: March 12, 2009
Decided and Filed: April 16, 2009
Before: MARTIN and GILMAN, Circuit Judges; ZOUHARY, District Judge.
RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. David L. Best claims to suffer from permanent anosmia—the loss of his sense of smell—as a result of a pool chemical spilling onto his face and clothing at a Lowe’s Home Center store. After filing suit against Lowe’s, Best planned to introduce the expert testimony of Dr. Francisco Moreno, a board-certified otolaryngologist (an ear, nose, and throat doctor) and a former chemical engineer, in order to establish the causal link between the chemical spill and his injuries. The district court excluded Dr. Moreno’s testimony, holding that the method employed by the doctor in drawing his conclusions regarding causation was “unscientific speculation.” This resulted in summary judgment being granted in favor of Lowe’s. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
|
JOHN DOE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BEVERLY BRILEY, et al., Defendants, TENNESSEE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON COUNTY, Defendants-Appellees, GANNETT SATELLITE INFORMATION NETWORK, INC. d/b/a THE TENNESSEAN; NEWSCHANNEL 5 NETWORK, L.P., Intervenors-Appellees. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
No. 73-06971—Aleta Arthur Trauger, District Judge.
Argued: December 11, 2008
Decided and Filed: April 16, 2009
Before: BOGGS, Chief Judge; KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge; THAPAR, District Judge.
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff appeals the district court’s order vacating a 34-year-old consent decree that proscribed the publication of certain arrest records. We agree with the district court that subsequent caselaw has swept away the decree’s constitutional foundation. We therefore affirm.
|
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant (07-5994)/Appellee, v. TOBIAS JONES, Defendant-Appellee/Appellant (08-5771). |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.
No. 06-00168—Charles R. Simpson III, District Judge.
Argued: September 15, 2008
Decided and Filed: April 16, 2009
Before: GUY, RYAN, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.
McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, defendant Tobias Jones made a pretrial motion to suppress key evidence against him. The district court granted the motion and the government now appeals. Jones also appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to revoke its pretrial detention order. For the reasons that follow, we conclude the district court erred in granting the motion to suppress and we therefore reverse that ruling. We affirm the district court’s decision to deny release pending appeal.
|
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KARL A.WHITE, JR., Defendant-Appellant. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 07-00029-001—Robert Holmes Bell, District Judge.
Argued: March 6, 2009
Decided and Filed: April 16, 2009
Before: KENNEDY, MARTIN, and COLE, Circuit Judges.
KENNEDY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Karl Alan White, Jr. received a life sentence for conspiracy to distribute crack and powder cocaine following a jury trial. All told, the jury found White guilty on seven counts: Count One, conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base (“crack cocaine”); Counts Two and Five, possession of cocaine base with the intent to distribute; Count Three, carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime; Counts Four and Six, felon in possession of a firearm; and Count Seven, possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. On appeal, White argues that he was denied a fair trial as a result of erroneous discovery rulings, erroneous evidentiary rulings, and prosecutorial misconduct, and that the district court erred sentencing him to life in prison. For the following reasons, we affirm White’s convictions but reverse his sentence and remand to the district court for re-sentencing in accordance with this opinion.