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

Plaintiff, a student cheerleader paralyzed while practicing a tumbling maneuver in gymnastics class, sought coverage under the insurance policy that Mutual issued to Prairie View as a member of the NCAA. Mutual argued that the policy covered student cheerleaders who were injured during cheerleading practice sessions. The court concluded that the gymnastics class could be considered a "practice session" under the policy; the coach authorized, supervised, and organized the cheerleading activities during the gymnastics class; the activities performed during the class were performed in preparation for a Qualifying Intercollegiate Sport team competition where plaintiff's primary purpose in taking the class was to improve his skills as a cheerleader; and the activities during the class were directly associated with the activities of a Qualifying Intercollegiate Sport team. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. View "Patterson v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of failure to pay legal child support obligations. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's award of restitution, arguing that the procedural requirements of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3663A-3664, were not strictly followed. The court concluded, however, that a district court was not necessarily divested of the power to order restitution when the government or the court failed to perfectly comply with the MVRA's procedural provisions. In this instance, defendant was on notice that he would have to pay restitution, though the amount was subject to change. He also knew that his ex-wife was seeking restitution for out-of-pocket expenses. The prosecution and the probation officer may have neglected to inform the court in a timely manner that some losses remained unascertainable prior to sentencing, but public policy forbids that the public interests should be prejudiced by the negligence of the officers or agents to whose care they are confined. Therefore, the court found that the district court had authority to order restitution for medical expenses post-sentencing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Zaic" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally pled guilty to possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court concluded that there was probable cause for the initial traffic stop where the trooper testified that defendant was driving in excess of the posted speed limit; the district court did not err in denying the request to suppress evidence on the grounds that an unreasonable extension of the first traffic stop tainted the subsequent investigation; the second dog sniff was supported by probable cause; any infirmities in the search warrant were irrelevant because the search of the vehicle fell within the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement; and defendant was not in custody at the time officers asked him questions while he was in his truck, and therefore, defendant's Miranda rights were not violated. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Holleman" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP) judgment holding that the bankruptcy estate of her former employer, Racing Services, was entitled to the liquidation proceeds of a cash-value life insurance policy the employer purchased for her. Because the trustee had presented no evidence demonstrating that appellant could have demonstrated insurability, the court rejected the argument that the purported "equities" of this case required that the court deem appellant's failure to reinstate the policy as an act of surrender. The terms of the agreement between appellant and Racing Services granted Racing Services only the limited right to receive a repayment of policy premiums from the cash value upon surrender of the policy. Accordingly, the court reversed where appellant at no time surrendered the policy and the estate did not possess a right to control the policy or receive its liquidation proceeds. View "Kaler v. Bala" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a member of the National Guard, filed suit against TXD, alleging that TXD violated the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. 4301 et seq., when it terminated him while he was deployed on active duty in Iraq. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of TXD. At issue was whether TXD violated its USERRA obligations to plaintiff while he was on leave by not including him on an asset list of TXD employees provided to Foxxe, which took over TXD's operations without interruption. The court reversed and remanded, concluding that the modified claim turned on one or more essential facts that the summary judgment record did not address. View "Dorris v. TXD Services, LP" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The court concluded that defendant waived his argument that law enforcement's protective sweep was unreasonable and overbroad; the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress where defendant signed a consent form; and based on the evidence, a reasonable jury could find that defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and his assertion that the government argued a lower standard of proof was baseless. The court concluded, however, that the alternate juror's presence during jury deliberations violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 24(c)(3) and the court remanded for the limited purpose of inquiry about the alternate's actual participation. View "United States v. Aguilar" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence. The court concluded that the district court committed no error, plain or otherwise, in imposing or explaining defendant's 57-month sentence. That the district court reached the same conclusion on remand and imposed the same sentence based upon its reassessment of those same statutory factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) following remand did not suggest that defendant's resentence was retaliatory or otherwise unfair. View "United States v. Butler" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Timothy Geithner, in his capacity as the Secretary of the Treasury, for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. The court concluded that no senior-international-agent position was available to which plaintiff could be promoted based on his work in the "M" case and plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the IRS's failure to promote him to a senior international agent for his work on the "M" case constituted a materially adverse employment action; failed to demonstrate unlawful retaliation because no reasonable juror could determine that the IRS undertook material adverse employment actions; and failed to demonstrate constructive discharge. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "AuBuchon v. Geitner" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the surviving spouse of Charles Kemp, appealed the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. An ALJ found that Kemp was not disabled because he could perform a job a vocational expert (VE) identified in response to a hypothetical the ALJ posed. The court remanded the case for further proceedings because the court was unable to discern from the record whether there was a conflict between the occupational listing at issue and the VE's response to the hypothetical. View "Kemp v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact. The court concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court properly based its sentence on the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors; the district court properly considered the nature and circumstances of the offense - defendant equated giving an acquaintance a ride home from a bar with consent for sexual contact, and the result was very upsetting to the victim; and the upward variance was substantively reasonable where the percentage of the departure was not sufficient in and of itself to find defendant's sentence substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Hummingbird" on Justia Law