Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The dispute arose from a tragic incident on January 14, 2022, when Marquise Webb and Richie Aaron, Jr. boarded an Amtrak train in Illinois. Although unrelated, both transferred to Amtrak’s River Runner train in Missouri, where Webb fatally shot Aaron without apparent motive during a scheduled stop. Amtrak prohibits firearms onboard, but does not routinely conduct passenger security screenings. After the shooting, Amtrak crew initially dismissed reports of gunfire as fireworks, and medical aid was rendered to Aaron at the next station, but he was pronounced dead shortly thereafter.Following these events, Breayonna Aaron, representing herself, her deceased husband, and their children, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri against Amtrak for negligence, negligent hiring/training/supervision, and wrongful death, seeking substantial compensatory and punitive damages. Amtrak moved for judgment as a matter of law, but the court submitted the case to a jury, which found Amtrak liable and awarded both compensatory and punitive damages. After trial, Amtrak renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, sought a new trial or reduction in punitive damages. The district court denied Amtrak’s motions, but reduced the punitive damages award as constitutionally excessive.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of Amtrak’s motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo. It held that the plaintiffs failed to provide legally sufficient evidence of a duty or causation under any negligence theory presented, as Missouri law requires foreseeability of criminal acts for a duty to exist, and but-for causation for wrongful death. The appellate court reversed the district court’s denial of Amtrak’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and directed the entry of judgment for Amtrak, finding no basis for liability on the claims asserted. View "Aaron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation" on Justia Law

Jonathan Russell Wright was convicted by a jury in 2012 for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, a federal offense, and sentenced to life imprisonment under the Controlled Substances Act. The life sentence was imposed due to three prior convictions under Arkansas law for cocaine-related offenses, which triggered a mandatory minimum enhancement. Years later, Congress enacted the First Step Act, which reduced mandatory minimum penalties for certain drug offenses but did not apply retroactively. Wright sought a sentence reduction in 2024, arguing that changes in law, including the First Step Act and recent case law, created a gross disparity between his sentence and what he would receive today. He claimed his prior Arkansas convictions should no longer qualify as predicate offenses for enhancement.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas-Central granted Wright’s motion in part, reducing his sentence to 420 months and imposing ten years of supervised release. The court acknowledged the disparity created by the First Step Act as an “extraordinary and compelling reason” for reduction but rejected Wright’s argument that his prior Arkansas convictions could not serve as predicate offenses, citing prior decisions. Wright appealed, arguing for a lower sentence and challenging the district court’s treatment of his prior convictions and its weighing of sentencing factors.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case, first addressing whether President Biden’s commutation of Wright’s sentence to 330 months mooted the appeal. The Eighth Circuit held that the commutation did not moot the case, as courts retain authority over judicial sentences. On the merits, the court found that Wright’s Arkansas convictions no longer qualify as predicate offenses under federal law and that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider this legal development. The Eighth Circuit vacated Wright’s sentence and remanded for resentencing consistent with its ruling. View "United States v. Wright" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs owned and operated a hotel that had a record of serious structural and safety problems, including a window and a stone falling from the building, and repeated failures to correct code violations. After a fire occurred without activation of the sprinkler system, a follow-up inspection revealed that several fire code violations remained unaddressed, along with new violations. Based on these findings, the city’s building administrator ordered the hotel to be closed immediately, citing imminent safety risks. The owners sought to appeal and demanded hearings, but the city cited the COVID-19 pandemic as a reason for delay and directed them to other appellate avenues. The closure order was lifted once the most urgent hazards were remedied, and the owners eventually fixed all violations.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment to the city and the building administrator, finding no violations of procedural due process or the Fifth Amendment, and that qualified immunity protected the administrator in his individual capacity. The plaintiffs appealed, challenging the procedural due process provided for the closure, the application of qualified immunity, and asserting that the closure constituted a regulatory taking.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that, even assuming a protected property interest existed, the risk of erroneous deprivation was low due to specific regulations and the availability of prompt post-deprivation remedies. The court also found that swift action in the face of public safety threats justified summary administrative action without additional pre-deprivation process. Regarding qualified immunity, the court determined that no clearly established law prohibited the administrator’s conduct. Finally, the court held that the temporary closure was a lawful exercise of police power and did not amount to a compensable regulatory taking. View "reVamped LLC v. City of Pipestone" on Justia Law

Ronald B. Panting, an independent contractor serving as a Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE) for the FAA, was conducting a pilot certification checkride for Michael Trubilla in a plane rented from the LeMay Aero Club, a government-affiliated organization. Both men died when the plane crashed during the checkride. Five days prior to the accident, Ronald signed a covenant not to sue the government for injuries sustained while participating in Aero Club activities, applicable to himself and his estate. His spouse, Lynne D. Panting, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging negligent maintenance of the aircraft.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska denied the government’s motion for summary judgment, ruling the covenant not to sue was void as against public policy under Nebraska law. The court did not address Lynne’s alternative argument that the covenant did not apply to Ronald’s activities as a DPE on the day of the crash. Following a bench trial, the district court found the government negligent and entered judgment for Lynne, awarding damages. The government appealed, challenging the district court’s decision regarding the covenant’s validity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review the denial of summary judgment because the enforceability of the covenant was a purely legal issue. Applying Nebraska law, the appellate court determined the covenant was neither clearly repugnant to public policy nor the product of disparate bargaining power, and that the Aero Club did not provide a public or essential service. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded for consideration of whether the covenant covered Ronald’s activities as a DPE, and for further proceedings as appropriate. View "Panting v. United States" on Justia Law

An undercover law enforcement operation targeted individuals seeking to purchase sex from minors through an online platform known for prostitution ads. An agent created a fake profile of a 45-year-old woman but, upon contact, informed the defendant that "she" was actually 13 years old. Despite multiple text exchanges in which the defendant expressed reluctance to engage with someone underage, he continued the conversation, eventually requesting photos, discussing sexual acts, and arranging a meeting while being repeatedly reminded of the minor’s age. At the meeting site, agents seized his phone, which he attempted to wipe, erasing relevant evidence.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa conducted a trial in which a jury convicted the defendant of attempted sex trafficking of a child and destruction of evidence. The court sentenced him to concurrent terms of 292 months and 240 months’ imprisonment. The defendant appealed, challenging the admission of lay-opinion testimony by the undercover agent regarding the perceived maturity of the fictitious minor’s responses, the denial of his request to contact a juror based on alleged outside influence, and the refusal to grant a downward sentencing variance on grounds of purported sentencing manipulation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court held that the agent’s lay-opinion testimony was appropriately admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, as it was based on personal knowledge and aided the jury’s understanding. The court found no abuse of discretion in denying juror contact, as the defendant’s claims were speculative and unsupported by evidence of outside influence. Finally, the court rejected the sentencing manipulation claim, determining that law enforcement had a legitimate goal in targeting those seeking sex with very young minors and that the agent’s actions were not solely intended to enhance the sentence. The judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Yuri Chachanko and an accomplice committed a series of armed robberies in South Dakota and Montana, leading to federal charges in both states. He was first prosecuted in Montana, where he received a 219-month sentence for Hobbs Act violations and firearm use. After completing that sentence, he faced prosecution in South Dakota, where he pleaded guilty to another firearm offense and was sentenced to 300 months, to be served consecutively after the Montana sentence. Years later, after legislative changes under the First Step Act, Chachanko sought a reduction of his South Dakota sentence, arguing that it was unusually long and that his medical conditions warranted relief.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota considered his motion. The court focused on whether Chachanko had served at least 10 years of the South Dakota sentence, as required for a reduction based on an unusually long sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. It found that, although Chachanko had spent 17 years in custody overall, he had only just begun serving the South Dakota sentence, as the sentences were consecutive. The court also found that his medical conditions were adequately managed and did not meet the standard for extraordinary and compelling reasons, and that no combination of circumstances justified relief.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Eighth Circuit held that the phrase “the term of imprisonment” in the relevant statute and guidelines refers specifically to the sentence imposed by the court reviewing the motion—here, the South Dakota sentence—and not to an aggregate of multiple sentences. As Chachanko had not served 10 years of the South Dakota sentence, he was ineligible for relief on that basis. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying relief based on medical or other circumstances. View "United States v. Chachanko" on Justia Law

A man was charged with several federal offenses, including being a felon in possession of a firearm, transporting a minor with intent to engage in prostitution, and possession of child pornography. The charges arose after he met a 16-year-old runaway through Craigslist, transported her across state lines, and engaged in a sexual relationship with her. Law enforcement discovered him with the minor, searched his residence, and found child sexual abuse material and multiple firearms. The defendant admitted to knowing the minor’s age and her mental health issues.He ultimately pled guilty to the firearm charge and one transportation count, with the remaining charges dismissed as part of a plea agreement. At sentencing in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, he received 292 months for transportation of a minor and 180 months for the firearm offense, to run concurrently. Thirteen days later, he moved to withdraw his guilty plea on the transportation count, arguing that he only learned at sentencing that the minor was missing and that this constituted exculpatory evidence the prosecution should have disclosed. The district court denied his motion, stating it lacked authority to consider post-sentencing withdrawal of a guilty plea except by direct appeal or collateral attack, and found that the minor’s unavailability was not exculpatory since public records of her status were available before the plea.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial under the abuse of discretion standard and affirmed. The appellate court held that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e) barred post-sentencing withdrawal of a guilty plea except by direct appeal or collateral attack, and that no Brady violation occurred because the information about the minor’s status was publicly available. The court also declined to review the firearm sentence under the concurrent sentence doctrine, as any ruling would not affect the defendant’s time to be served. The judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Adkins" on Justia Law

A railroad company headquartered in Nebraska provides track safety services known as “flagging,” often using its own employees. A third-party company, RailPros, also supplies flagging workers for outside projects that require access to the railroad’s property. A labor union, which represents some employees of the railroad but not RailPros workers, requested that a federal agency determine whether RailPros flagging workers should be considered covered employees under federal railroad retirement and unemployment statutes. The union argued that the railroad’s use of RailPros workers displaced union members and undermined the benefits system. The agency began an investigation, requested information from the railroad, and ultimately scheduled a hearing to decide the employment status of the RailPros workers. The agency also designated the union as a party to the hearing, which would give it access to confidential business information.The railroad objected to the union’s party status, arguing that it would result in disclosure of sensitive information to an adversarial party. After the agency declined to remove the union as a party or to sufficiently protect the railroad’s confidential information, the railroad filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. The railroad sought judicial review of the agency’s order under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging the order was unlawful and would cause irreparable harm. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that exclusive judicial review lay in the courts of appeals under the statutory schemes governing railroad retirement and unemployment benefits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that the agency’s order granting the union party status was a final agency action under the APA and not subject to exclusive review in the courts of appeals under the relevant statutes. The court ruled that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to review the agency’s order immediately under the APA and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. RRRB" on Justia Law

Suzan Taylor sought property insurance for her home in Hot Springs, Arkansas, using an application form provided by her insurance agent. In her application, Taylor answered “no” to a question about whether she had experienced a foreclosure in the past five years, though she had owned another property, the Fairfield Bay Property, that was sold in a foreclosure sale in 2016. Hiscox, a capital provider to an underwriting syndicate at Lloyd's of London, issued her the policy through its authorized agent, Burns & Wilcox, Ltd. After a fire destroyed the insured home, Hiscox investigated and discovered Taylor’s failure to disclose the earlier foreclosure. Hiscox rescinded the policy ab initio, refunded the premium, and denied coverage for the fire loss.The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas initially granted summary judgment to Hiscox, concluding Taylor’s failure to disclose foreclosure proceedings on the insured property itself was a material misrepresentation. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held the term “foreclosure” as applied to the insured property was ambiguous, reversed the district court’s judgment, and remanded for further proceedings on other alleged misrepresentations. On remand, the district court determined that Taylor’s failure to disclose the foreclosure sale of the Fairfield Bay Property was a material misrepresentation and not ambiguous in this context. The court found that Hiscox’s agent did not acquire relevant knowledge of the foreclosure while acting for Hiscox, so Hiscox was not precluded from asserting the misrepresentation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Taylor’s failure to disclose the foreclosure was a material misrepresentation justifying rescission of the policy ab initio. The court also held that the policy’s Concealment or Fraud section independently precluded coverage due to Taylor’s false statement. Consequently, Taylor’s counterclaims for breach of contract and bad faith failed. View "Hiscox Dedicated Corp Member v. Taylor" on Justia Law

A federal grand jury charged the defendant with possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Task force officers at a bus station in Omaha, Nebraska identified the defendant’s suitcase as suspicious and removed it from the bus’s luggage compartment. After the defendant claimed and approached his bag, an officer questioned him about his travel plans and requested permission to search the suitcase, which the defendant consented to. The defendant then fled, prompting officers to detain him and search his belongings, ultimately discovering firearms and controlled substances.The defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from his suitcase, backpack, and person, arguing that the officers’ actions constituted unlawful searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment. A magistrate judge recommended denying the suppression motion, concluding that the suitcase was not seized, the initial encounter was consensual, the consent to search was valid, and reasonable suspicion supported the later detention. The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska adopted the recommendation and denied the motion to suppress. At trial, a jury acquitted the defendant of possession with intent to distribute but found him guilty of simple possession and the firearms offense. The district court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 144 months’ imprisonment and a $2,500 fine, the latter without findings about the defendant’s ability to pay.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion, holding there was no Fourth Amendment seizure of the suitcase, the initial encounter was consensual, the defendant’s consent to search was voluntary, and reasonable suspicion justified the post-flight detention. The court also affirmed the custodial sentence as substantively reasonable but vacated the fine, remanding for proper findings on the defendant’s ability to pay. View "United States v. Clay" on Justia Law