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

Swift County filed suit against Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHFA, alleging that the federal agencies violated state law by failing to pay taxes on the transfers of deeds to real property. The court affirmed the district court's grant of the federal agencies' motion to dismiss because the Exemption Statutes, 12 U.S.C. 1723a(c)(2) and 12 U.S.C. 1452(e), established an exemption from all state taxation. The court concluded that the Exemption Statutes are a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the federal agencies are federal instrumentalities, not privately-held corporations. View "Vadnais, et al. v. Federal National Mortgage, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her employer, CBE, under 42 U.S.C. 1981, alleging claims of race discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of CBE. The court concluded that, even considering the otherwise time-barred acts that were similar to the acts that occurred within the limitations period, plaintiff failed to set forth sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on her hostile work environment claim. The twelve incidents of alleged harassment that occurred after March 1, 2007, as well as the similar acts that occurred before then, taken together are not sufficiently severe or pervasive to show that plaintiff's work environment was objectively offensive. Having affirmed the district court's decision on the hostile work environment claim, the court need not further address plaintiff's constructive discharge claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Clay v. Credit Bureau Enterprises, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of a decision of the BIA dismissing his appeal from the IJ's order of removal. Petitioner admitted that the tampering with evidence conviction justified his removal. However, he argued that res judicata barred DHS from bringing the removal proceedings against him because the tampering with evidence conviction arose from the same nucleus of operative fact as the manslaughter conviction. The court concluded that petitioner's manslaughter and tampering with evidence convictions are two different causes of action that arose out of different facts, required different proof, and redressed different wrongs. Therefore, assuming without deciding that res judica principles applied to immigration proceedings, the requisite elements are not present and the removal proceedings are not barred. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Cabrera v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, as trustee for the next of kin of her deceased son, filed suit against five police officers and the city, alleging violations of the son's (1) Fourth Amendment right to be secure against unreasonable seizure, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and (2) the Minnesota wrongful death statute, Minn. Stat. 573.02. The court concluded that Officer Devick was entitled to qualified immunity for his actions during his initial encounter with the son where a reasonable officer faced with the same circumstances would not have known that the decision to kick and hit the son in an attempt to detain him clearly violated the Fourth Amendment. The court also concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions during the second encounter with the son where plaintiff failed to establish that the punches, kicks, knee strikes, and tasers they used on the son were unconstitutional. Even if the conduct was unconstitutional, it was not clearly established at the time. The court agreed with the district court's finding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence showing that the officers intentionally apprehended the son in a way that they believed was prohibited by law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of official immunity and dismissal of the wrongful death claim against the individual officers. The court also affirmed the district court's dismissal of the vicarious liability claim against the city. View "Smith v. City of Minneapolis, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed his conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court agreed with the district court that the initial seizure of defendant in a strip mall parking lot was based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Knowing of defendant's past conviction for violent conduct and a firearms offense, the officer had reasonable suspicion of an imminent, unlawful assault of another, which justified a Terry stop. The district court did not abuse its broad discretion in denying defendant's motion to continue. The district court did not err in imposing a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1. Finally, the court rejected defendant's constitutional challenges to his sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Humphrey" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his second amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Because Missouri's public policy required American Century not to retaliate against plaintiff for testifying in the arbitration proceeding at issue, plaintiff has alleged a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing sufficient to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Accordingly, the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's complaint. View "Kmak v. American Century Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Sam's club, alleging that Sam's Club willfully violated a provision of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), 15 U.S.C. 1681c(g)(1), which prohibits accepting credit or debit cards for a consumer transaction from printing more than the last five digits of the card number upon any receipt provided to the cardholder. The court concluded that plaintiffs have standing under Article III; the court agreed with the district court that Sam's Club violated FACTA but that the violation was not willful; and the district court acted properly in denying plaintiffs' motion to recuse. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Sam's Club. View "Hammer, et al. v. Sam's East, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

The State appealed from the district court's order granting petitioner's petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington based on counsel's failure to raise a claim that the trial court violated petitioner's right to self-representation under Faretta v. California by not conducting a Faretta hearing and not allowing him to proceed pro se. The court concluded that petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief because, even if the court were to conclude that the Missouri Court of Appeals unreasonably determined that counsel's performance was constitutionally adequate, it was not unreasonable for the Missouri Court of Appeals to hold that petitioner's evidence of prejudice fell short of meeting Strickland's standard. View "Bilauski v. Steele, et al." on Justia Law

Pettry Claimants appealed the bankruptcy court's order denying a motion for reconsideration of a November 8, 2013 order sustaining debtor's seventeenth omnibus objection to claims. The bankruptcy appellate panel affirmed because the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider where the motion did not raise any new issues or any other grounds for reconsideration of the bankruptcy court's order. View "Pettry, et al. v. Patriot Coal Corp." on Justia Law

After plaintiff's daughter was born with permanent nerve damage in her right shoulder and arm, plaintiff filed suit against the physician who performed the delivery of plaintiff's daughter. The court concluded that the proper standard for review of the district court's order granting the motion in limine is abuse of discretion, not plain error; the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the testimony of plaintiff's experts because the experts' opinions did not fit the specific facts of this case; the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of informed consent where the record did not support the contention that the physician's expert testified the risk factors present in this case required a physician to warn a patient about the possibility of a permanent injury; and the court rejected plaintiff's contention that the district court should have granted her a new trial based on allegedly prejudicial and inflammatory comments made by defense counsel during closing arguments. View "Lawrey v. Kearney Clinic, P.C., et al." on Justia Law