CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
RICHARD WESLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ALISON CAMPBELL, et al.,
Defendants,

JOANNE RIGNEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 16-5431
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington.
No. 2:10-cv-00051—David L. Bunning, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: July 20, 2017
Before: DAUGHTREY, CLAY, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge. We previously addressed aspects of this civil rights case in Wesley v. Campbell, 779 F.3d 421 (6th Cir. 2015) (Wesley II). In Wesley II, plaintiff Richard Wesley appealed an adverse decision by the district court in the lawsuit he brought against Joanne Rigney, an officer with the Covington Police Department. Wesley had claimed that Rigney was liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for arresting him without probable cause. The district court, concluding that probable cause existed for the arrest and that Rigney was qualifiedly immune, granted Rigney’s motion to dismiss the claim. Wesley v. Rigney, 913 F. Supp. 2d 313, 321 (E.D. Ky. 2012) (Wesley I). We reversed that decision and remanded to the district court, where the case proceeded to trial. After a jury determined that Rigney did arrest Wesley unlawfully, Rigney filed a renewed motion for a directed verdict and a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment for a new trial. The district court denied both motions. Wesley v. Rigney, No. 10-51-DLB-JGW, 2016 WL 853505, at *14 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 3, 2016) (Wesley III).

On appeal, Rigney challenges the district court’s denial of her motion for a directed verdict on both the false-arrest claim and her entitlement to qualified immunity. Further, she challenges the district court’s denial of her motion for a new trial based on the district court’s failure to instruct the jury adequately about the issue of qualified immunity, and the district court’s reference to J.S.’s psychological history during the probable-cause jury instruction. Finally, Rigney contends that the district court erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict regarding the availability of punitive damages and in refusing to remit both the punitive and compensatory damage awards. We find no reversible error and affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
MAJESTIC BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES INCORPORATED, d/b/a The Huntington National Bank,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 16-4342
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 2:15-cv-03023—James L. Graham, District Judge.
Argued: June 21, 2017
Decided and Filed: July 20, 2017
Before: SILER, CLAY, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Majestic Building Maintenance, Inc., appeals from the order entered by the district court granting the motion to dismiss of Defendant Huntington Bancshares, Inc., d/b/a The Huntington National Bank, thereby dismissing all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant for violating the Uniform Commercial Code, U.C.C. §§ 4-103(a), 4- 401, codified as Ohio Revised Code, O.R.C. §§ 1304.03, 1304.30, whereby Defendant refused to assume liability for monies paid out of Plaintiff’s bank account on four fraudulent checks.

For the reasons that follow, we REVERSE the district court’s order of dismissal and REMAND with instructions to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint and conduct discovery.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
CLARENCE D. SCHREANE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
DAVID EBBERT, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
   No. 15-6141
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Chattanooga.
No. 1:13-cv-00190—Harry S. Mattice Jr., District Judge.
Argued: June 21, 2017
Decided and Filed: July 20, 2017
Before: SILER, CLAY, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SILER, Circuit Judge. Clarence D. Schreane seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Specifically, Schreane argues that the police violated his Fifth Amendment rights when they denied his request for an attorney while being questioned at the police station. In the alternative, Schreane argues that the police officers’ promises of leniency also made his confession involuntary. Due to the proper deference afforded to the state court, we affirm the district court’s denial of Schreane’s writ of habeas corpus.