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

Plaintiff filed suit alleging deliberate indifference by the University to her rape by another student and state law violations including breach of contract, misrepresentation, and negligence following a back injury she received in training for the field hockey team. The district court granted summary judgment to the University. The court concluded that plaintiff had not demonstrated a genuine issue of matter fact as to whether the University acted with deliberate indifference in respect to her rape and its aftermath; although plaintiff's sexual assault was clearly devastating to her, plaintiff had not shown that the University violated Title IX in its response to it or otherwise; plaintiff had not created a genuine issue of material fact on her negligence claim because she had not presented evidence to show the University breached a duty to conform to a standard of care; the district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's misrepresentation claims because she provided no evidence that any representations made to her were actually false; plaintiff has not demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact on her breach of contract claim; plaintiff has not shown that Judge Autrey abused his discretion by declining to recuse where alumni connections were not a reasonable basis for questioning a judge's impartiality; plaintiff has not shown error or abuse by the district court or violation of her due process rights where she failed to present her positions as required by the court rules for the orderly disposition of issues; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to extend discovery under Rule 56(d). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Roe v. St. Louis University, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a student cheerleader paralyzed while practicing a tumbling maneuver in gymnastics class, sought coverage under the insurance policy that Mutual issued to Prairie View as a member of the NCAA. Mutual argued that the policy covered student cheerleaders who were injured during cheerleading practice sessions. The court concluded that the gymnastics class could be considered a "practice session" under the policy; the coach authorized, supervised, and organized the cheerleading activities during the gymnastics class; the activities performed during the class were performed in preparation for a Qualifying Intercollegiate Sport team competition where plaintiff's primary purpose in taking the class was to improve his skills as a cheerleader; and the activities during the class were directly associated with the activities of a Qualifying Intercollegiate Sport team. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. View "Patterson v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his parents filed suit against the District alleging violations of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794 and 794a, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the District. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court because plaintiff failed to present evidence of bad faith or gross misjudgment by the District. View "B.M., et al. v. So. Callaway R-II School Dist." on Justia Law

After 15-year-old B.K. was barred from showing livestock at 4-H exhibitions, B.K.'s father filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the unincorporated 4-H Association and two 4-H officials. The district court granted preliminary injunctive relief from the claimed denial of B.K.'s constitutional right to procedural due process. The court inferred that 4-H membership and participation was a "right or status" open to all South Dakota children interested in a career in agriculture, subject to reasonable, non-discriminatory terms; the record clearly demonstrated that the ban deprived B.K. of the opportunity to participate in a public program that was important to her education and career development and from which she obtained significant personal income; and, therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that B.K. had a fair chance of proving that defendants published a defamatory ruling that deprived her of a right or status conferred by state law and that she was entitled to the constitutional protection of the Due Process Clause. Further, B.K. was not afforded minimal procedural due process protection; there was a sufficient showing of the threat of irreparable injury; and the balance of the equities and the public interest supported the issuance of the injunction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Kroupa v. Nielsen, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs ("Parents") filed suit against Educators seeking a declaratory judgment that the Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 1989, Ark. Code Ann. 6-18-206(f)(1), violated the Equal Protection Clause and an injunction transferring their children to another school district. The court concluded that Parents' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot because the Arkansas General Assembly enacted the Public School Choice Act of 2013, Ark. Code Ann. 6-18-1901 et seq., which repealed the 1989 Act in its entirety. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded with directions to dismiss. View "Teague, et al. v. Arkansas Board of Education, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the District alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 706 and 794a. Plaintiffs' claims involved disputes with the District over the manner in which the District implemented individualized education programs. The court concluded that plaintiffs were required to exhaust their administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400-1491, before filing their ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims in the district court. Further, the futility, inadequate remedy, and contrary to law exceptions were not applicable in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant summary judgment in favor of the District. View "J.B., et al. v. Avilla R-XIII School District" on Justia Law

The Committee sued the NCAA for interfering with the University of North Dakota's use of the Fighting Sioux name, logo, and imagery. The district court treated the NCAA's motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of the NCAA. The court concluded that the Committee had not shown that the NCAA acted with discriminatory intent; the Committee was not denied due process by the NCAA because, as a nonmember, it was entitled to none from the NCAA; and the NCAA's act neither violated the laws of the land nor plainly violated its own constitution and bylaws. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Spirit Lake Tribe of Indians, et al v. The NCAA" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, on behalf of their son, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Missouri Constitution, alleging that the district, the superintendent, the principal, and the sheriff violated the son's constitutional rights by briefly separating him from his backpack during a drug dog exercise in his high school. The district court granted summary judgment to the district, its officials, and the sheriff. The court concluded that the brief separation of the son and his belongings was reasonable and did not deprive him of a constitutionally protected right and therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment to the district and its officials. The court also held that the sheriff was not liable under section 1983 in his individual or official capacity where he did not participate in the drug procedure at the school, there was no evidence that the sheriff failed to train or supervise the deputies who conducted the drug dog surveys, and there was no evidence that the sheriff's office should have believed that its procedures or actions were likely to result in a constitutional violation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Burlison, et al v. Springfield Public Schools, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against the University alleging that the University, as her former employer, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12112, 12203, by refusing to accommodate her mental and physical disabilities and by responding to her requests for accommodation with hostile actions that caused her constructive discharge. The court agreed with the district court that the University lacked the capacity to be sued under state law and Rule 17(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment without reaching the merits of plaintiff's ADA claims. View "Lundquist v. University of SD Sanford" on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal, defendants appealed from the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, which halted a mandatory drug-testing policy implemented by Linn State. In evaluating the probability of plaintiffs' success on the merits, the court concluded that the district court erred in ignoring the substantial obstacles this facial challenge presented for plaintiffs and therefore abused its discretion in issuing such a broad injunction. Because plaintiffs have failed to show a fair chance of prevailing on their facial challenge, the court vacated the preliminary injunction. View "Barrett, IV, et al v. Claycomb, et al" on Justia Law