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

Plaintiff filed suit against National Life and Penn Mutual after both companies denied his claims for disability benefits under insurance policies they had issued to him. Plaintiff was unable to practice chiropractic because his license was suspended. The court concluded that an incapacity arising from license suspension was not a sickness or injury that qualified as total disability under the policies. Once plaintiff lost his chiropractic license, the practice of chiropractic no longer was an occupation from which he could become disabled by virtue of sickness. That a sickness or illness might have prevented plaintiff from reestablishing a practice of chiropractic did not qualify him for disability benefits because the sickness did not render him unable to perform an occupation under the terms of the policies. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to National Life and Penn Mutual and denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. View "Cich v. National Life Ins. Co., et al," on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for one count of criminal sexual conduct. The court held that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt defendant's knowledge that his victim lacked the capacity to consent to sexual conduct. The court reversed the conviction because the jury instructions did not require the jury to make such a finding. The court remanded for a new trial. View "United States v. Fast Horse" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of China, sought review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ found that petitioner's application for asylum was time-barred. The IJ denied withholding of removal or relief under the CAT because petitioner failed to demonstrate that she was a member of any Christian church or had converted to Christianity and therefore could not demonstrate that she would be persecuted or tortured in China based on her religion. The court concluded that, given the suspicious timing of petitioner's alleged conversion to Christianity and her lack of evidence proving that she was a member of the St. Louis Chinese Baptist Church, minor translation errors relating to Baptist religious practices or the Bible or the harassment of petitioner's Christian friends in China would not undermine the IJ's decision. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Yang v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

After receiving an adverse ruling from the Rosebud tribal courts regarding a casino management contract, plaintiff filed suit in federal court seeking to vacate the tribal court ruling and to enjoin the Tribe from continuing a second action in the Rosebud tribal courts. The court reversed the district court's denial of the Tribe's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust tribal court remedies pertaining to BBC's challenge of the tribal courts' jurisdiction; remanded this part of the claim to the district court with instructions to enter an order dismissing plaintiff's complaint; and affirmed the district court's orders in all other respects. View "Colombe v. Rosebud Sioux Tribe, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motions to suppress. The government argued that the police had a reasonable suspicion that defendant was violating several of Missouri's gun laws and contended that, in any event, the police acted reasonably under the community caretaker doctrine. In this instance, officers responded to a call about a gun falling out of the pocket of a man sleeping outside of a bus station. Unlike most typical Fourth Amendment encounters, the governmental interest in vindicating the officers' actions here was not encompassed in the enforcement of criminal statutes but, instead, in the officers' obligation to help those in danger and to protect property. Under the circumstances, the officers' decision to handcuff defendant until they could safely awaken him and obtain more information was reasonable. Finally, the scope and duration of the intrusion were also reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

In 2011, plaintiffs filed suit against the Bank for breach of contract, negligence, and conversion after plaintiffs gave physical possession of gold coins and proof sets to a predecessor of the Bank, as collateral to secure a line of credit in the 1980's, and the Bank stated conclusively in 2009 that it no longer possessed the coins. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Bank, holding that the suit was time-barred by Missouri's ten-year statute of limitations. Whether plaintiffs could or could not have continued to borrow on the allegedly ongoing line of credit did not change the fact that reasonable persons had to have known, prior to January 2001, that their creditor's non-responsiveness and inability to locate the collateral suggested that an injury and substantial damages may have occurred. View "Mahanna, et al. v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Assoc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging claims of unlawful sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000 et seq., and the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code 216.6. On appeal, defendants challenged the jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, arguing that they were entitled to a new trial. Defendants argued that the district court erred in overruling their objection to improper rebuttal closing argument by plaintiff's counsel, and then abused its discretion in denying defendants' post-trial motion because this argument, while improper, was not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial. Counsel made emotionally-charged comments at the end of rebuttal closing argument, referencing her own sexual harassment during law school and assurances to the jury that her client testified truthfully about past sexual abuse. The court concluded that the timing and emotional nature of counsel's improper and repeated personal vouching for her client, using direct references to facts not in evidence, combined with the critical importance of plaintiff's credibility to issues of both liability and damages, made the improper comments unfairly prejudicial and required that the court remand for a new trial. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gilster v. Primebank, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B), claiming that Prudential wrongly denied him long term disability (LTD) benefits under a group policy sponsored by his former employer, Vertis. The court concluded that the district court correctly concluded that the plan language as confirmed by the Summary Plan Description explicitly granted Prudential discretion to interpret the plan and to determine eligibility for benefits. Prudential did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff long term disability benefits where Prudential provided plaintiff the required full and fair review before denying his first appeal. The court agreed with the district court that the subsequent medical evidence submitted with plaintiff's voluntary second appeal did not render Prudential's denial of his mandatory first appeal an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court denied plaintiff's motion to strike Prudential's separate appendix and Prudential's motion for leave to file a Sur-Reply Brief. View "Prezioso v. Prudential Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, consumers, filed suit in Minnesota state court against ConAgra, claiming that some Hebrew National beef products were not, as the label reads, "100% kosher." ConAgra removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. 1453. The district court decided that the First Amendment prohibited the courts from adjudicating plaintiffs' legal claims and dismissed the appeal. The court concluded that plaintiffs alleged economic harm - even if only a few pennies each - was a concrete, non-speculative injury. The court concluded, however, that plaintiffs' allegations failed to show that any of the particular packages of Hebrew National beef they personally purchased contained non-kosher beef. Without any particularized reason to think that plaintiffs' own packages of Hebrew National beef actually exhibited the alleged non-kosher defect, plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to sue ConAgra and CAFA did not extend federal jurisdiction to this case. The court vacated the district court's judgment, reversed the district court's dismissal with prejudice, and remanded with instructions to return this case to the state court for lack of federal jurisdiction. View "Wallace, et al. v. ConAgra Foods, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Wells Fargo and Freddie Mac, asserting several deficiencies with the foreclosure of his home and seeking to quiet title to the property in himself. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court found that Wells Fargo was holder of the note and, thus, was entitled to appoint a successor trustee to the deed of trust; the court rejected plaintiff's argument that Missouri law required Wells Fargo to produce the original note at the time of the foreclosure proceeding; and plaintiff failed to provide clear and satisfactory evidence that the foreclosure sale was conducted improperly, more particularly that the statutory notice requirements were not met. Having determined that plaintiff's wrongful foreclosure action failed, plaintiff cannot show that he has superior title to the property, and therefore, could not succeed on his quiet title action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. View "Lackey, Jr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al." on Justia Law