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

Plaintiffs filed suit against the Bank seeking to void a mortgage foreclosure sale of their home. Plaintiffs alleged that the Bank represented orally that it would postpone the foreclosure sale, but then proceeded to foreclose anyway. The court concluded that plaintiffs' claim of negligent misrepresentation was barred by the Minnesota Credit Agreement Status, Minn. Stat. 513.33, where any party asserting the existence of a credit agreement must comply with the writing and signature requirements of section 513.33. The court concluded that the complaint alleged a claim of promissory estoppel, rather than equitable estoppel, and was barred by the Minnesota Credit Agreement Statute. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of the Bank's motion to dismiss. View "Bracewell, et al. v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Assoc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of one count of receipt of materials involving the sexual exploitation of children in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2) and three counts of possession of materials involving the sexual exploitation of children in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B). The court concluded that the three possessions counts listed in the indictment were multiplicitous because they charged the same crime; because defendant received concurrent sentences on all of his convictions, a remand with directions that the convictions on two of the three possession counts be vacated rendered a new trial unnecessary; the court rejected defendant's argument that the jury erred in convicting him on the receipt count because it returned a guilty verdict on both the receipt offense; even assuming that the jury's verdict was ambiguous, the district court took remedial measures by polling the jury and it eliminated any threat of double counting by entering judgment of conviction only on the greater receipt offense; and jury Instruction No. 9 did not constructively amend the indictment because it fairly captured the production element of the crime. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "United States v. Emly" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of transporting a minor in interstate commerce with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. On appeal, defendant appealed his sentence of 120 months imprisonment. Defendant argued that the district court abused its sentencing discretion by failing adequately to explain a substantively unreasonable sentence. The court concluded that the failure-to-explain contention was frivolous where the district court's explanation of its upward variance was more than sufficient. The court also concluded that there was no abuse of the district court's wide sentencing discretion and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Roberts" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and more than 50 grams of cocaine base. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing wiretap transcripts to be used to assist the jury where there was more than sufficient evidence to support the identification of defendant's voice on the records; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of prior offenses under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) where defendant put his intent and knowledge of the drug conspiracy at issue; the district court correctly applied the career offender enhancement to defendant's sentence under U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(b); the district court correctly imposed a life sentence under 21 U.S.C. 841(b); and there was no cumulative error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Wiggins" on Justia Law

Continental appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs. The district court determined that plaintiffs' had made more than one claim against their former financial advisor. The financial advisor was insured by Continental under a professional liability insurance policy. Therefore, the district court held that the insurance policy's coverage limit for a single claim did not apply and that plaintiffs' claims triggered the insurance policy's aggregate coverage limit. The court concluded that, although the financial advisor made different alleged misstatements, omissions, and promises on different dates to each plaintiff, there nonetheless existed a logical connection between her wrongful acts. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded to the district court for entry of judgment in favor of Continental. View "Kilcher, et al. v. Continental Casualty Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the city and several police officers after her son was shot in the chest with an electronic control device (ECD). After the case settled, plaintiff filed suit against TASER for products liability and negligence. The court concluded that plaintiff's failure to warn claim failed as a matter of law because she did not establish on the record that an additional warning would have changed the behavior of the officers involved; the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding plaintiff's expert's testimony on the issue of whether a different or additional warning would have altered the officer's actions under the existing circumstances; even if the court were to conclude that there was a legitimate jury question as to whether the officer had been made aware of the specific risk of cardiac danger when the ECD was fired directly at the subject's chest, such a conclusion would be rebuttable by undisputed evidence in the record that he had not been instructed on available warnings and did not heed the limited training he had received; there was no genuine dispute on the record that the officer would not have read any additional warning TASER may have added as to the cardiac danger of the ECD in any of its product warnings or bulletins, or in any training materials prepared after January 1, 2005; even if an adequate warning had appeared, the officer would not have heeded it; and therefore, TASER was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's negligence and failure to warn claims where she failed to establish that an additional warning would have altered the behavior of the officer. The court also concluded that plaintiff failed to present evidence that the ECD device used by the officer was unreasonably dangerous as designed. Plaintiff's design defect claim failed as a matter of law where plaintiff failed to demonstrate any "specific design choices" that rendered the model unreasonably dangerous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment and dismissed plaintiff's remaining claims as moot. View "Bachtel v. TASER Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

The Creditor appealed from the bankruptcy court's denial of its motion for relief from the automatic stay in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy case of debtors. At issue was whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion when it denied the Creditor's motion for relief from the stay. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by denying the Creditor's request to stay relief in light of the debtors' failure to comply with their obligations under their plan (and therefore, the relevant loan documents), by being significantly behind in their payment to the Creditor. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Borm, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search of his person. The court concluded that, considering Missouri law, and based on the call that there was an individual carrying a concealed weapon that had exited the bus, the officers had reason to believe criminal activity was afoot. Therefore, given the facts of this case, the additional information provided the moderate indicia of reliability necessary to support reasonable suspicion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Woods" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that state officials in the WRDCC's Offenders Under Treatmet Program (OUTP) violated his rights under the First Amendment. Plaintiff, as an atheist, participated in OUTP, which "had required meetings [and] invoked religious tenets by using the serenity prayer and religious meditations." Plaintiff eventually left the program and believed that he was denied an early release on parole for failure to complete OUTP. The court concluded that whether plaintiff's withdrawal from the program was indeed voluntary or was the result of coercion was yet to be determined; therefore, dismissal on this ground was premature; plaintiff has pled facts sufficient to state a claim that a parole stipulation requiring him to attend and complete a substance abuse program with religious content in order to be eligible for early parole violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; and plaintiff has pled facts sufficient to show that the personal involvement required for Defendants Crawford and Salsbury to bear section 1983 liability. As to Defendant Burgess, at this stage of the litigation, he has not. Accordingly, the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's complaint and the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Nixon, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of one count of conspiracy to distribute marijuana. The court concluded that defendant waived any claim that he was "forced" to stipulate that he lived at the residence at issue where a party introducing evidence cannot complain on appeal that the evidence was erroneously admitted; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial based on the district court's statement about a co-conspirator where the district court's curative instructions to the jury purged any prejudicial effect; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial; and the government did not improperly vouch for the credibility of two witnesses during closing argument. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Sevilla-Acosta" on Justia Law