Odom v Penske Truck Leasing Co.

Odom appealed the dismissal of its suit arguing Oklahoma’s workers compensation law did not apply in this case. After receiving answers to certified questions to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the panel reversed and remanded. It held that under the legal standard set out by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the district court erred in giving Penske immunity based solely ion its role as shareholder in Odom’s employer and thus remand was necessary to determine if Penske has an identity independent from the employer. It also held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction as the exclusive remedy portion of Oklahoma’s worker’s compensation statute is a waivable affirmative defense.

Auto-Owners insurance Company v Csaszar

Csaszar appealed summary judgment to Company declaring there was no coverage for Csaszar’s daughter. The panel affirmed. It held under Colorado’s reasonable expectations doctrine, the policy here clearly provided no coverage for daughter as she was explicitly excluded form coverage when she used any automobile. It rejected Csaszar’s public policy argument holding the Colorado Court of Appeals has rejected the same argument and allowed exclusion of related resident drivers from uninured/underinsured coverage

Jimenez v Sessions

Jimenez sought review of his removal order and the failure of the immigration board to sua sponte reopen his case. The panel granted the petition in part and dismissed in part. It disses the reopening petition as circuit precedent holds such decisions are outside the court’s jurisdiction. It granted the petition as to the removal order holding circuit precedent applying the modified categorical approach to Colorado trespass statutes cannot be reconciled with the United States Supreme court Mathis decision, the Colorado Revised Statutes 18-4-502 is not divisible as intent to commit a crime, not the underlying crime, is an element under Colorado case law and thus consideration of what underlying crime was involved is not allowed under the categorical approach and the immigration board decision that the trespass conviction was a crime of moral turpitude based on consideration of the underlying crime was wrong. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

In Re United Western Bancorp, Inc. (Rodriguez v Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation)

Rodriguez, as trustee of the estate, appealed the district court judgment that Corporation, as receiver of a bank owned by united, was entitled to the tax refund for united. The panel affirmed holding the agreement between United and the bank concerning a joint return for all the affiliated corporations was ambiguous as to whether an agency or creditor-debtor relationship existed between United and the bank and the agreement provides that ambiguities must be construed in favor of the bank which means the refund belongs to Corporation.

United States v Latore

Latore appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The panel affirmed. It held the investigative detention of Latore and his airplane was justified as  there was reasonable suspicion that Latore was involved in drug transportation in his airplane based on his unusual travel itinerary, lack of a transponder and his criminal history which included drug trafficking and this suspicion was imputed to the officer who made the stop under the collective knowledge doctrine as there was communication between the involved state and federal agents demonstrating the officers and agents were acting as a team which satisfies the vertical collective knowledge doctrine. It held the warrantless search of the airplane was constitutional as Latore voluntarily consented to the search.