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

Polar Tank discharged a maintenance technician for failing to safely complete repair of an overhead crane. The Union grieved the discharge and the grievance was submitted to arbitration. The arbitrator partially upheld the grievance, reducing the technician's discipline to a thirty-day unpaid suspension. Polar Tank sued to vacate the arbitration award and the Union counterclaimed to enforce it. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment enforcing the award where the award at issue drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The arbitrator considered the technician's poor performance and concluded that it constituted negligence but not the type of insubordination for which Article 29 mandated discharge; the court rejected Polar Tank's claim that the arbitrator was wrong to disregard the Standards of Conduct; and the arbitrator did not err in disregarding the Management Rights clause. View "PSC Custom, LP v. United Steel, etc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and her husband brought a products liability action against the Little Giant Ladder's manufacturer after she suffered injuries while using the ladder. The district court excluded plaintiff's expert testimony and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove the various theories of products liability. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to the manufacturer. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of the compression tests on the grounds the tests were not conducted under conditions substantially similar to those surrounding the accident. Furthermore, because plaintiff had no admissible expert testimony to support her theories of product liability, the court concluded that the district court did not err in granting the manufacturer's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Loomis, et al. v. Wing Enterprises, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon and domestic assault by an habitual offender. Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion in admitting statements from the victim as an excited utterance because the alleged victim was not under the stress of the incident at the time she made the statements. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the statements as an excited utterance considering the 30 minute lapse of time between the incident and the statements, the victim was shaking and appeared to have been crying, and the statements were offered in response to the officer's general inquiry into what had happened. Further, while defendant may offer alternative explanations for the victim's appearance and behavior, those explanations did not undermine the district court's exercise of its discretion in determining that the victim's statements bore a "guarantee of trustworthiness" and were not subject to reflection and deliberation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Graves" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's denial of their motion to remand and its dismissal on the merits of their claims against Wells Fargo and Kozeny. The court concluded that, because plaintiffs did not allege that Kozeny owed a tort duty enumerated in the deed of trust, no reasonable basis in fact and law supported plaintiffs' negligence claim against Kozeny; because there was no reasonable basis in fact and law for either of plaintiffs' negligence and breach of fiduciary claims, it follows that Kozeny was fraudulently joined and that the district court properly denied plaintiffs' motion to remand; the court modified the district court's dismissal of the claims against Kozeny to be without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and because Kozeny - the only nondiverse defendant - was dismissed, the district court properly retained federal diversity jurisdiction over plaintiffs' remaining claims against Wells Fargo. Because plaintiffs failed to state a claim of wrongful foreclosure, fraudulent misrepresentation, violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. 407.020.1, negligence, or negligent misrepresentation, the district court properly granted Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss. View "Wivell, et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits (SSI) based on his post traumatic stress disorder, arthritis, headaches, hearing problems, back and knee problems, and acid reflux. The court concluded that the ALJ did not err in denying plaintiff benefits because the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence on the record. View "Smith v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's denial of her application for supplemental security income benefits (SSI) based on her mental impairment. The court concluded that the record was not fully developed as to plaintiff's mental impairments. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further development of the record. The ALJ shall reschedule plaintiff for an IQ test and other testing he deems appropriate before ruling on plaintiff's claim for benefits. View "Channell v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The court concluded that the district court properly applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm where the district court found that defendant constructively possessed the firearm that was found and that it was not clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with defendant's drug trafficking offense. The district court also properly applied a two level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Renteria-Saldana" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence based on his trial counsel's ineffectiveness. The court concluded that counsel's performance was not constitutionally deficient for failing to assert a statute of limitations defense and the district court properly denied relief on this claim; under the circumstances, which include a deadlocked jury in petitioner's first trial, the court granted in part petitioner's motion to expand the certificate of appealability, vacate the denial of section 2255 relief, and remand to the district court to reconsider the issue in light of Burrage v. United States; the court also left for the district court to determine in the first instance whether petitioner's substantive challenge faces any significant procedural hurdles to its consideration on the merits. View "Ragland v. United States" on Justia Law

In 1993, a class of plaintiffs represented by Reggie White settled a lawsuit with the NFL by signing an extensive collective bargaining agreement (the SSA), that governed labor relations between the NFL and its players. In 2011, the Association filed suit against the NFL, asserting that the NFL had violated the SSA in 2010 by instituting a secret cap on player salaries. The suit was settled and the Association now seeks to set aside the Stipulation of Dismissal and reopen its breach-of-SSA claim. Because the White class never asserted any of the claims settled in the dismissal, because these claims did not arise from a bargained-for class settlement, because the parties themselves have never treated the SSA like a class settlement, and because only a handful of the White class members were affected by the dismissal, the court concluded that the failure of the district court and the litigants to abide by the class settlement procedures of Rule 23(e) did not invalidate the dismissal. The court agreed with its sister circuits that have held that a stipulated dismissal constitutes a "judgment" under Rule 60(b). Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's Rule 23 ruling, reversed the district court's Rule 60 ruling, and remanded for further proceedings. View "White, et al. v. National Football League, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for use of interstate facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying U.S.S.G. 2E1.4(a)(2) to cross reference to U.S.S.G. 2A1.5(b)(1) to calculate the base offense level for his sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law