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

Petitioner was convicted of a class B misdemeanor under N.D. Cent. Code 36-11-01 for the offense of livestock running at large after three of his horses were discovered roaming freely in his neighbor's fields. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court concluded that, under North Dakota law, petitioner was entitled to appeal his misdemeanor conviction as a matter of right. The court held that petitioner was entitled to relief on his habeas petition, and thus the court remanded the case to the district court with directions that it be held in abeyance for not longer than 120 days from the date of issuance of the court's mandate. If within that time the State grants petitioner leave to take an out-of-time appeal with the assistance of counsel, the district court shall dismiss his petition. If such an appeal is not granted within that period, the district court shall enter judgment vacating petitioner's conviction. View "Koenig v. State of North Dakota" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's grant of Allstate's motion for summary judgment and denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that defendant's son-in-law was not an insured person under an umbrella insurance policy. Because the plain language of the Allstate umbrella policy provided XL coverage only for the legal obligation of insured persons, and the son-in-law was not an insured person under the umbrella policy, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Rice" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition. Defendant pled guilty to a drug offense and argued on appeal that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Assuming, without deciding, that defendant has demonstrated that his counsel's performance was deficient, the record conclusively showed that defendant was not entitled to relief where he failed to demonstrate that, absent the three alleged errors, there was a reasonable probability that he would not have pled guilty. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Frausto" on Justia Law

This dispute arose between H&S, the lessor of drilling equipment, and Graham, the lessee, over the lease of drilling equipment for the construction of an underground water shaft. The court reversed the jury's verdict and judgment in favor of Graham and entered judgment in favor of H&S on Graham's claim for negligent misrepresentation as the claim was barred by the economic loss doctrine; the court had no basis to conclude that the doctrine of equitable estoppel barred H&S's breach of contract claim as a matter of law; because the district court refused to submit an estoppel instruction based exclusively on failure to disclose, any error in refusing the instruction could not be predicated on evidence of affirmative representations made by H&S; the district court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on Graham's proposed mitigation instruction; therefore, the court vacated the jury award in favor of H&S on its breach of contract claim; the court concluded that the doctrine of unclean hands does not bar H&S's recovery of the value of the auger; therefore, the court vacated the district court's award in favor of H&S for loss of the auger and remanded for a new trial on damages as to those claims; and the court noted that on remand, Graham's mitigation defense may reduce all, some, or none of H&S's damages. View "Graham Construction Services v. Hammer & Steel Inc." on Justia Law

The government filed a forfeiture complaint regarding the Mask of Ka-Nefer-Nefer, an Egyptian mummy cartonnage discovered in 1952 by an archaeologist working for the Egyptian government and registered as government property. The Museum purchased the Mask in 1998 and refused the Egyptian government's repeated requests to return the Mask. The government's notice of appeal included the district court's Order of Dismissal, but the Statement of the Issue section of the government's brief stated that the only issue on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a post-dismissal motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The court concluded that the appeal of the Order of Dismissal has been waived, and the court need not be concerned about the truth of the pleaded facts. In this case, the government failed to request leave to amend in the eleven months between the Museum's motion to dismiss and the district court's Order of Dismissal, choosing instead to stand on and defend its original complaint. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court had no reason to question that litigation strategy. Although the government's motion for leave to amend cited both Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b), the Rule 59(e) motion was untimely. Further, the proper recourse for the government was a direct appeal, not a Rule 60(b) motion. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's procedural ruling. View "United States v. Mask of Ka-Nefer-Nefer" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court imposed a sentence of 120 months of imprisonment after applying the first-degree murder cross-reference from U.S.S.G. 2A1.1 where defendant possessed the firearm while participating in a homicide. The court concluded that the district court did not err by conducting its own fact-finding for the purposes of the section 2A1.1 cross-reference and otherwise determining the guidelines range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, employees of OMLP, filed a negligence suit alleging that American Greetings' failure to properly label its electrical system and warn plaintiffs of the unique nature of its transformers caused Plaintiff Duncan's incorrect assumptions about the secondary transformer's voltage. The court concluded that American Greetings owed plaintiffs no duty to warn of the well-known hazard of approaching a charged transformer with improper equipment; because the nature of plaintiffs' work necessarily implicated these obvious hazards, American Greetings owed no duty to exercise ordinary care for plaintiffs' safety; and because plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that American Greetings owed them a duty, their negligence claims failed as a matter of law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of American Greetings. View "Duncan, et al. v. American Greetings Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The court concluded that defendant's prior sexual-abuse convictions qualified as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The court also concluded that defendant's argument that the residual clause of the ACCA is unconstitutionally vague was foreclosed by precedent. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Howard" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 for willful obstruction of justice. The court concluded, however, that the district court erred in applying the six-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3A1.2(c)(1) for attempting to stab a detective with a pen. Because defendant had been arrested, was shackled to the floor of an interview room at the police station, and made no attempt to flee, the assault did not occur during immediate flight from the felon-in-possession offense. View "United States v. Collins" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against a public transit officer and Metropolitan Council under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the officer violated plaintiff's constitutional rights when the officer arrested plaintiff at a downtown bus stop. The court concluded that the officer had at least arguable probable cause for the arrest based on plaintiff's nonverbal conduct and the officer was entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiff's unlawful arrest claim; though the court agreed that the use of force in this case may have been unreasonable, and acknowledged that plaintiff described being pepper sprayed as a painful experience, plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence that he suffered more than de minimus injury; therefore, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim; the officer was entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's retaliatory arrest claim because the officer had at least arguable probable cause for the arrest; but the officer was not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity from plaintiff's retaliatory use of force claim where plaintiff's First Amendment right to make comments and to obtain the officer's badge number was not clearly established at the time. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Peterson v. Kopp, et al." on Justia Law