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

Plaintiff filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and Arkansas state law, alleging various claims against her former employers. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the employers on her claims of sex discrimination, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation. The court concluded that plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that she suffered an adverse employment action and that she received different treatment because of her sex; considering the totality of the circumstances, plaintiff failed to establish that an incident related to a workplace disagreement permeated the workplace and thus had not established a prima facie case of hostile work environment; plaintiff failed to establish a case of constructive discharge where, inter alia, the record reflected that the employers sought to retain her as an employee; and plaintiff failed to establish a case of retaliation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the employers on plaintiff's claims. View "Rester v. Media, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for sexual exploitation of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2251(a) and 2251(e). The court concluded that the district court properly interpreted the word "uses" in section 2251(a) and correctly overruled defendant's motion for a directed verdict. The court also concluded that defendant's 220-month sentence was substantively reasonable. Because nothing in the record indicated that the sentence was grossly disproportionate to his crime, defendant's sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Vanhorn" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for thirteen counts of federal tax related offenses. The court concluded that defendant failed to demonstrate that the district court committed error in dismissing two jurors because the record sufficiently disclosed the district court's reason for replacing each juror; defendant's Sixth Amendment rights have not been implicated as no witness or evidence against defendant was presented when the district court dismissed the jurors; the replacement of the jurors occurred before the case was sent to the jury for deliberations, and there was no indication that the remaining jurors were adversely influenced by the district court's decision to replace each juror; and there was no prejudice where counsel was informed. The district court did abuse its discretion by excluding Exhibit 621 under Federal Rule of Evidence 403; the district court did not err in limiting the scope of defendant's witness's testimony where the testimony was inadmissible hearsay; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give defendant's proposed theory-of-defense instruction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Picardi" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court concluded that the state court applied the correct legal standard, a totality-of-the-circumstances test, in determining the voluntariness of his confession and reached a reasonable conclusion under the circumstances. The court also concluded that petitioner did not satisfy the elements of a Sixth Amendment claim under Strickland v. Washington where his ineffective-assistance claim was not an unreasonable application of clearly established law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Gray v. Norman" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a qui tam action against North Memorial under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., alleging that North Memorial knowingly submitted fraudulent claims to the government seeking payment for cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation services that did not comply with Medicare regulations. The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The court affirmed the dismissal on the alternative ground that plaintiff's complaint did not meet the requirements of Rule 9(b) because the complaint failed to identify even one example of an actual false claim submitted for reimbursement. View "United States, ex rel. Michael Dunn v. North Memorial Health Care, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession (Count 1), possession with intent to distribute less than fifty kilograms of marijuana (Count 2), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count 3). The court held that the police did not violate the Fourth Amendment by entering defendant's home without a warrant based on exigent circumstances at that time where a witness had told the police that a gun had been fired; the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress where the scope of the search was reasonable and defendant did not object to the search, nor was he threatened, he acknowledged that he read and understood the consent form, and did not object while officers searched the house; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of all three counts; and the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Goodrich" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty for charges related to his involvement, as the Superintendent of the Street Department, in a scheme to defraud the city. Defendant later petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2255, arguing that his counsel was ineffective for failing to assert during plea negotiations and at sentencing that U.S.S.G. 2C1.1, instead of U.S.S.G. 2B1.1, did not apply to his 18 U.S.C. 1341 convictions for mail fraud. Assuming that counsel was deficient during plea negotiation by agreeing to the application of an improper Guidelines section, defendant failed to show that this deficiency prejudiced him; assuming that defendant's counsel was deficient at sentencing, defendant failed to show prejudice where an objection by counsel to the application of section 2C1.1 would have breached the plea agreement; and breach of the plea agreement by defendant would have released the government from its obligations under the plea agreement and would have allowed the government to proceed in any manner it desired with respect to defendant's charges. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Covington v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against ARI, alleging that a golf cart accident had caused his debilitating back pain. The court concluded that the district court did not err in admitting an expert's testimony under the standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; under Arkansas law, the jury could rely upon lay testimony to conclude that plaintiff was asymptomatic prior to the accident and upon the expert's testimony to conclude that plaintiff's lack of symptoms prior to the accident tended to exclude potential causes of his symptoms; where the parties agreed that the district court abused its discretion in partially remitting the jury's damages award, the district court did not err in denying the motion for a new trial; and the district court did not err in its remittitur of damages. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Tedder v. American Railcar Industries" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Novartis alleging that Novartis negligently failed to provide adequate warnings for two drugs she took, Aredia and Zometa, after having two of her teeth extracted. Plaintiff developed osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) after the extraction. Plaintiff was awarded $225,000 in compensatory damages and Novartis appealed. The court concluded that a jury could reasonably find that plaintiff's injury was the natural and probable consequence of Novartis's behavior and rejected Novartis's arguement that plaintiff did not establish that her injuries were proximately caused by inadequate warnings; the district court did not err in applying Missouri law where Missouri had the most significant relationship to the punitive damages claim; and Novartis correctly reasoned that the MedWatch checkmarks were inadmissible hearsay, out-of-court assertions offered for their truth but Novartis failed to demonstrate the prejudice required for a new trial. The court concluded, however, that the district court abused its discretion in awarding plaintiff full costs for depositions conducted as part of multi-district litigation. Accordingly, the court affirmed in Case No. 12-3121 and vacated in Case No. 12-3409. View "Winter v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs represented four security guards that filed suit against the Commission for unlawful termination. After the Commission chose to reinstate the guards, it issued checks for back pay to the guards but did not put plaintiffs' names on the checks. Plaintiffs moved to establish an attorneys' lien against the Commission and the district court denied the motion. Determining that the court had jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, the court concluded that the district court erred in using equitable discretion to deny the attorneys' lien under Minn. Stat. 481.13 where the statutory requirements for the lien were met. Equitable principles did not trump the lien. Accordingly, plaintiffs were entitled to an attorneys' lien and the court reversed and remanded. View "Schermer, et al. v. Municipal Building Commission, et al." on Justia Law