Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Search for legal issues
For help near (city, ZIP code or county)
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location

Decisions in Liability Insurance Coverage, Satellite-Cable Piracy, and Criminal Matters

Article Placeholder Image
By FindLaw Staff on March 10, 2010 3:35 PM

Today, the Seventh Circuit decided a criminal case, a sewer district's suit against a liability insurer, and a case involving a preliminary injunction enjoining a defendant from engaging in piracy.

In US v. Oglesby, No. 09-1334, the court faced a challenge to the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence of a firearm discovered during a Terry stop.  In affirming the denial, the court held that based on the totality of the circumstances, the officer clearly had articulable facts upon which he could reasonably suspect that the defendant was armed or dangerous, and moreover, the pat-down was extremely limited to the area on the defendant where the gun was found.

In Russian Media Group, LLC v. Cable Am., Inc., No. 09-1554, the court faced a challenge to the district court's grant of preliminary injunction enjoining the defendant-cable television company from pirating Russian-language satellite television programming and distributing it to customers in certain apartment houses.  In affirming the decision, the court held that the trial court did not err in writing the injunction as it did.  The court also rejected all of defendant's claims including res judicata defense, preemption defense and its argument that the preliminary injunction was inappropriate because the plaintiff was not the "aggrieved party."

In Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist. v. American Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., No. 09-1645, the court faced a challenge to the district court's judgment in favor of a sewerage district in its suit against an environmental liability insurer for denying coverage for pollution clean-up costs.  In reversing the decision, the court held that the trial court erred in finding that, by a clear and convincing proof, that a prior agreement existed with respect to the parcel at issue would be covered property. 

Related Resources:

Find a Lawyer

More Options