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

Defendant appealed his conviction for two counts of sexual abuse of a minor (A.C.) and sexual abuse of a person incapable of consenting (H.C.). The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give defendant's theory-of-defense instruction where the instruction was duplicate and more in the nature of arguments to the jury; the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding to convict defendant of the offenses; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of another individual's prior sexual abuse conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Brown Thunder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the bankruptcy court's order imposing sanctions and judgment, and an order denying a motion to vacate or alter or amend judgment. The bankruptcy appellate panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision that defendant violated Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011, as well as its imposition of sanctions in connection therewith, including suspension of defendant from practice for six months under Local Rule 2090-2; reversed the bankruptcy court's imposition of sanctions against defendant under 11 U.S.C. 105 and its inherent authority because defendant did not receive separate prior notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding such sanctions; and remanded to the bankruptcy court the decision regarding sanctions for alleged misrepresentations by defendant at the Order to Appear and Show Cause hearing. View "Young v. Cruz" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm based on his possession of a sawed-off shotgun found in a plastic bag located in a refrigerator on his aunt and uncle's property. Defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the officers' search for, and seizure of, the shotgun violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The court concluded that defendant did not have a subjective reasonable expectation of privacy in a plastic bag that was visible to anyone standing near the refrigerator in an open field. Even if defendant had a subjective expectation of privacy, his expectation was not objectively reasonable. Further, because defendant consistently disavowed any ownership interest in the bag containing the shotgun, he was precluded from claiming that the bag was searched and its contents seized in violation of his constitutional rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. Douglas" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, five kilograms or more of cocaine, and 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. The court concluded that, based on the court's Amendment 709, defendant failed to demonstrate that his 2010 conviction for possession of a small amount of marijuana was sufficiently similar to public intoxication, disorderly conduct, or any other enumerated offense under U.S.S.G. 4A1.2(c). Therefore, the district court properly added a criminal history point under U.S.S.G. 4A1.2(c) to defendant's criminal history score. Further, the district court did not err in adding a criminal history point for his 2009 conviction of possession of marijuana in a motor vehicle. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Ruacho" on Justia Law

St. Jude sued its competitor, Medtronic, for tortiously interfering with its business relationship with an employee. After the parties arbitrated their claims, St. Jude then sued the employee's wife (defendant) for related claims. On appeal, St. Jude challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant. Defendant had left her at-will employment with St. Judge to work for Medtronic and her husband's sales at St. Jude dropped significantly. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that Florida law applied because Florida was the forum that rendered the arbitration judgment. Applying Florida's requirements for res judicata, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of Counts 1, 3, 5, and 6 arising from defendant's acts as a St. Jude employee because they were not barred by res judicata; the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Counts 2 and 4; and the court remanded for further proceedings. View "St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. v. Cormier" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against police officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violating her constitutional rights. The district court denied the officers qualified immunity and the officers filed an interlocutory appeal. The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that no reasonable police officer could actually believe that plaintiff's warrantless arrest was lawful, given the information supplied to the officers and the circumstances surrounding the arrest. The officers arrived at plaintiff's door when she was nursing her infant and lead her out of her home in handcuffs based on an invalid, recalled arrest warrant for failure to appear to contest a simple traffic violation. After she was given a strip search and body cavity search, plaintiff was detained in jail overnight, the first time she had been separated from her infant. Because the court affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity on the grounds of the warrantless arrest, the court did not address whether the humiliating indignities suffered by plaintiff as a result of the officers' conduct constituted an independent rationale for a section 1983 claim on unreasonable seizure. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Bechman v. Magill, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, after being diagnosed with tardive dyskinesia (TD), filed suit against Lilly, manufacturer of the antipsychotic drug, Zyprexa, alleging personal injury and product liability claims. The district court concluded that Lilly adequately warned plaintiff's treating and prescribing physicians of the risk of developing movement disorders like TD. On appeal, plaintiff argued, inter alia, that the district court erred in excluding his expert opinion testimony that 15% of Zyprexa users will develop TD after three years of use. The court concluded that the district court was well within its substantial discretion to conclude that plaintiff had not provided sufficient scientific support for the opinion and to exclude the opinion. The court also concluded that the district court properly applied the learned intermediary doctrine in dismissing the failure-to-warn claim. Finally, assuming Arkansas law recognized an overpromotion exception, the exception would not apply in this case because plaintiff presented no evidence that any representation by a salesperson affected a prescribing doctor's decision to continue plaintiff on Zyprexa and because there was no reliable evidence that Zyprexa had significantly more risk of movement disorders than the drug reps allegedly said it had. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint. View "Boehm v. Eli Lilly & Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, after being acquitted of state law charges related to the possession of firearms, filed suit against the City and eight police officers, under 42 U.S.C. 1983. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment for the officers on his Fourth Amendment claim against them in their individual capacities. The court concluded that the officers did not exceed the scope of plaintiff's consent for them to be in the basement of his home where the officers had to walk through the basement to access another room; the warrant was supported by probable cause where the officers noticed two sawed off shotguns; the record did not reflect the deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth that violated the Fourth Amendment; and the officers had probable cause to arrest him on the state gun charges. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Fagnan v. City of Lino Lakes, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that recent amendments to Minnesota's No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act, Minn. Stat. 65B.41-71, violated the First Amendment. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin defendants from enforcing the new provisions. The court concluded that the "inherently misleading" standard was broad enough in application to encompass 411-Pain's references to the $40,000 in potential insurance benefits. As such, the court affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of subdivision 6(d)(5). The court concluded that plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits in the ultimate litigation because the ads at issue were "inherently misleading" where 411-Pain's use of actors posing as persons of authority to sell its business extended a misleading aura of authorized approval to the services in question and where the disclaimer "PAID ACTOR" did not disclaim endorsement by the actors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of subdivision 6(d)(6). Finally, the court concluded that the requirements at issue in subsections 6(d)(1), 6(d)(2), and 6(d)(3) were constitutional and the court rejected plaintiffs' claims to the contrary. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. View "1-800-411-Pain Referral, et al. v. Leroy Otto, D.C., et al." on Justia Law

Defendants Huston and Anderson appealed their sentences after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit mortgage fraud by means of interstate wire communication. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying a two-level sentencing enhancement to defendants' sentences under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) for the use of sophisticated means when defendants recruited straw buyers, obtained inflated appraisals, and created two entities to submit fraudulent billings and disburse loan proceeds to themselves and kickbacks to the buyers without arousing lender suspicion; Huston waived his claim that the district court did procedurally erred in finding that the amount of loss was $4.89 million, which resulted in an 18-offense-level increase; and defendants' within-range sentences were substantively reasonable where the district court gave sufficient weight to the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Huston" on Justia Law