CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SOMERSET; KENTUCKY HOUSING AUTHORITIES SELF-INSURANCE FUND, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees,

JASON STEELE; ROBIN MULLINS; RHONDA KAY GRIFFIN,
Defendants-Appellants.
   No. 16-6691
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky at London.
No. 6:14-cv-00027—Danny C. Reeves, District Judge.
Argued: August 2, 2017
Decided and Filed: August 15, 2017
Before: SILER, SUTTON, and WHITE, Circuit Judges


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. In 2009, an old tree broke low on its trunk and fell on cousins Kaitlyn Griffin and Joshua Thacker. The tree killed Kaitlyn and severely injured Joshua. Kaitlyn was pregnant, and the doctors tried to save the baby, but he died an hour after being born. Their families filed—and won—a state court lawsuit for nearly $4 million against the Housing Authority of Somerset, which was found responsible for failing to maintain the area where the tree had been.

At stake is how much of this judgment will be paid by insurance. The Housing Authority belonged to a self-insurance Fund and enjoyed liability coverage through a policy the Fund purchased from the Evanston Insurance Company. Evanston denied coverage for the full judgment. It then filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in federal court against the families, the Housing Authority, and the Fund seeking to limit its liability to $1 million. The district court agreed with Evanston. On appeal, we remanded the case to permit the district court to ensure that subject matter jurisdiction existed, to determine more specifically whether complete diversity existed between the parties. On remand, the district court determined that there was complete diversity and reinstated its original judgment. We affirm both rulings.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
HATTIE TANNER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
JOAN YUKINS,
Respondent-Appellee.
   No. 15-1691
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:04-cv-71155—Victoria A. Roberts, District Judge.
Argued: May 4, 2017
Decided and Filed: August 15, 2017
Before: DAUGHTREY, MOORE, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Hattie Mae Tanner, who was convicted of murder in 2000, argues that the district court erred by denying habeas relief on two grounds. First, Tanner argues that the Michigan Supreme Court unreasonably applied Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985), when it held that the trial court properly denied Tanner’s trial counsel funding for a serology or DNA expert, and that the district court erred by upholding the Michigan Supreme Court’s application of Ake. Second, Tanner argues that the Michigan Supreme Court unreasonably applied Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), when it held that there was sufficient evidence to convict Tanner, and that the district court erred by upholding the Michigan Supreme Court’s application of Jackson. We agree with Tanner that she was convicted based on insufficient evidence and that the Michigan Supreme Court unreasonably applied Jackson. We REVERSE the district court’s judgment denying habeas relief on Tanner’s Jackson claim. Because we hold that Tanner is entitled to habeas relief on the ground that the Michigan Supreme Court unreasonably applied Jackson, we do not address whether the Michigan Supreme Court also unreasonably applied Ake.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
IN RE: RAYMOND TIBBETTS,
Movant
   No. 17-3609
On Motion to Remand.
No. 1:14-cv-00602—Michael R. Merz, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: July 24, 2017
Before: BATCHELDER, MOORE, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
ORDER
_________________________

Petitioner Raymond Tibbetts filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio determined was a second-or-successive habeas petition and transferred to our court. The district court properly concluded that Tibbetts’s petition is second or successive, and Tibbetts’s motion to remand is therefore DENIED. Because * This decision was originally filed as a panel order on July 24, 2017. The court has now designated the order for full-text publication. Tibbetts filed a second-or-successive habeas petition and cannot meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), his habeas petition is DISMISSED.