Endrew F. v Douglas County School District RE-1

Endrew’s parent sought reimbursement of private school tuition arguing failure by district to provide appropriate education under Individuals with disabilities education Act. The administrative law judge denied their request and the district court affirmed. The panel affirmed. It held that while the District did not provide adequate reporting of progress, this did not violate the Act as Endrew’s parents were involved through conferences and written communication throughout Endrew’s schooling. It held that District considered interventions to help with Endrew’s behavior and that is all the Act requires. The panel held that circuit precedent requires use of the “some benefit” standard and language in a 2012 case that mentions a different standard was only quoting out of circuit cases in a section recounting the varied approaches to the issue and in any event a panel of the 10th Circuit cannot overturn circuit precedent. The panel held Endrew’s proposed plan was substantively complied with the Act because it was reasonably calculated to provide some educational benefit particularly as his previous plans had similar goals of increasing difficulty and Endrew showed progress in achieving those goals and district called upon specialists to develop a behavior plan which was still in development when Endrew was enrolled in a specialized autism education school.

Davis v McCollum

Davis appealed the denial of his habeas petition. The panel denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed. It held that because Oklahoma law at the time of Davis’ sentencing granted discretion to sentence convicted murders to life with or without parole, Supreme Court precedent striking down mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles did not apply and habeas was properly denied.

Kirkbride v Terex USA, LLC

Terex appealed the denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law in this products liability case. The panel reversed and remanded. It held the evidence was legally insufficient because there was no evidence a better warning about removing material form the rock crusher would have prevented the accident as Kirkbride didn’t read the warning provide and stated he would not read manuals provided; there was no evidence that a nondefective part would have broken as designed and prevented the accident; and Kirkbride’s, implied warranty of merchantability claim fails because his product liability claim fails.

SRM, Inc. v Great American Insurance Company

SRM sued Company alleging it owed a duty to initiate settlement negotiations in a claim for injuries in a train-truck collision. The district court granted summary judgment to Company. The panel affirmed. It held that under the unambiguous terms of the insurance contract, Company owed no duty to investigate or initiate settlement negotiations until primary insurance was exhausted, it fulfilled these duties by tending policy limits after a settlement was negotiated and the authority relied upon by SRM deals with unreasonable rejection of a settlement which is not the case here.

United States v Rodebaugh

Rodebaugh appealed the denial of his motion to suppress his confession, his convictions for illegal hunting, sentence and a ban on future hunting. The panel, 3-0 as to the conviction and sentence 2-1 as to the ban, affirmed. The panel held that the motion to suppress was properly denied as Rodebaugh did not exhibit an signs of confusion due to a lack of sleep, the interview was done outdoors, Rodebaugh was told he as not under arrest and that he was free to leave and while one officer threatened to take away his house, in the totality of the circumstances, inducing offers telling Rodebaugh they had photos of him putting salt down as bait, the confession was voluntary. It also held that there was no error in requiring Rodebaugh to present his evidence first as there was no prejudice. The panel rejected Rodebaugh’s vagueness challenge as he admitted knowing his conduct was illegal and the baiting done here was precisely what the regulations ban. The panel held the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions as Rodebaugh admitted baiting the areas the deer or elk were killed. The panel affirmed the calculation of the guideline range as there was expert testimony baiting increases the chance of disease transmission among deer and elk, the value calculation was reasonable given the values of rendered animals and trophy takes and the district court’s findings of perjury were supported by the record. The majority held that Rodebaugh forfeited any challenge to the ban on occupational hunting by failing to object and the government’s failure to raise the forfeiture in their brief was sufficiently remedied though its invoking the invited error doctrine at oral argument and it would be inequitable to allow Rodebaugh to argue he would lose his license anyway then attack the restriction on appeal. The majority affirmed the ban on private hunting holding the district court’s concerns about recidivism were supported by the record. The dissent argued that there was no invited error as the district court at most knew Colorado would suspend hunting privileges but not that all states would, Rodebaugh’s objection to the presentencing report was sufficient to put the district court judge on notice that the occupational restriction was being objected to, the government failed to brief the forfeiture and failed to adequately argue invited error, the district court was required to make specific findings before imposing the restrictions and did not do so, both parties agree this was error and thus the case should be remanded for further proceedings.