How We Resist Positive Change

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell Law professor Sherry F. Colb describes some ways in which we resist positive change; specifically, she describes her initial hesitation to becoming an ethical vegan and the rationalizations we use to justify resisting positive change. Professor Colb argues that animals are different from inanimate objects, and we must recognize that when anyone suffers, anyone regardless of species, we have an evil that rightly commands our attention and action.

Read More

Guardian Flight LLC v. Godfread

Dockets: 19-1343, 19-1381

Opinion Date: March 17, 2021

Judge: Roger Leland Wollman

Areas of Law: Aviation, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

At issue in this case are two provisions of North Dakota Senate Bill 2231. The first prohibits air ambulance providers from directly billing out-of-network insured patients for any amount not paid for by their insurers (the payment provision). The second prohibits air ambulance providers or their agents from selling subscription agreements (the subscription provision). Guardian Flight filed a declaratory judgment action claiming that both provisions are preempted under the Airlines Deregulation Act (ADA). Defendants responded that, even if preempted, the provisions were saved under the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The district court concluded that although the ADA preempted both provisions, the McCarran-Ferguson Act saved the subscription provision. The Eighth Circuit agreed with the district court's ADA preemption analysis and concluded that the ADA preempts both the payment provision and the subscription provision. However, the court held that the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not apply because the provisions were not enacted "for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance." Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

Dunne v. Resource Converting, LLC

Dockets: 19-2982, 19-3170, 19-3271

Opinion Date: March 17, 2021

Judge: Erickson

Areas of Law: Business Law, Civil Procedure, Contracts

After plaintiff purchased licenses for RCI non-thermal, pulverizing, and drying system technology (PAD), he alleged that the capabilities of the PAD System were misrepresented to him. Two federal law suits were filed, one in Iowa and one in Missouri. In this consolidated appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the Iowa judgment, rejecting RCI's argument that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the jury awarded no compensatory damages. The court concluded that punitive damages were recoverable under Iowa law because the jury necessarily found that plaintiff suffered actual damages when it found fraudulent misrepresentation. Furthermore, the jury could award punitive damages without an award of compensatory damages, and the punitive award was not unconstitutionally excessive. The court also concluded that plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief and the district court neither erred or abused its discretion as to plaintiff's equitable counterclaims. Finally, the court found that the method used and reasons given by the district court for the reduction in costs were well within its discretion, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees. The court remanded the Missouri judgment for further proceedings, concluding that the district court erred by applying federal law, rather than Iowa law, to determine whether plaintiff's claim was precluded. The district court also erred by determining that Missouri law on the economic loss doctrine would bar plaintiff's misrepresentation claims. The court also noted that plaintiff's conspiracy claim should be reinstated and the district court's attorneys' fee award to Resource as the prevailing party is set aside.

United States v. Coy

Docket: 20-1156

Opinion Date: March 17, 2021

Judge: Bobby E. Shepherd

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the government's motion to begin involuntary treatment of defendant under Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003). Defendant suffers from amphetamine-induced psychotic disorder, with onset during intoxication, and was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The district court found defendant incompetent to stand trial and defendant declined medication. The court found that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the Treatment Plan will significantly further the important state interests. In this case, the government met its burden in showing that the medication was substantially likely to render defendant competent to stand trial and it was substantially unlikely to have side effects that would interfere significantly with defendant's ability to assist counsel in conducting a trial defense. Finally, the district court did not clearly err in finding that involuntary medication is medically appropriate for defendant.