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

Plaintiff and her kids filed a wrongful death action in state court against R.J. Reynolds and others after her husband died from throat cancer. Defendants removed to federal court, arguing that both of the nonmanufacturers had been fraudulently joined. The district court then granted defendants' motion to dismiss because the family's claims were barred by res judicata. The court concluded that the district court did not err in finding fraudulent joinder, denying plaintiff's motion for remand, and then dismissing the nonmanufacturers from the case. The court also concluded that the "one recovery" rule of Missouri Revised Statutes 537.080 barred recovery against defendants in plaintiff's earlier suit for a wrongful death caused by the same conduct. Therefore, the district court was correct in dismissing the claims against the manufacturing defendants under the more demanding of the dismissal standards. As a result of the prior judgment, the husband no longer had a viable claim against the cigarette manufacturers at the time of his death, and his family is barred from bringing such a claim now. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Thompson, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to possessing marijuana with intent to distribute and appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found during a warrant search of his apartment. The court concluded that the exclusionary rule did not apply to preclude use of the evidence in the search warrant application where the officers reasonably relied on binding circuit precedent in conducting a dog sniff outside the door of the apartment at issue. Therefore, the warrant was valid and defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen and challenged the BIA's refusal to open his case sua sponte. The court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to review the Board's June 2013 order denying the April 2013 motion to reopen where petitioner's contentions regarding the Board's evaluation of new factual information presented no question of law. Further, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the Board's refusal to reopen a case sua sponte because there is no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency's exercise of discretion and the determination is committed to agency discretion by law. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition for review. View "Barajas-Salinas v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her convictions stemming from a robbery of a mini mart. The court concluded that the district court did not err in instructing the jury on her affirmative defense of coercion or duress where she herself requested the instruction. Further, this was not an exceptional case warranting review of defendant's ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal. Such claims would more appropriately be raised in a collateral challenge to defendant's conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Mathison" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for two heroin-related offenses. The court concluded that the district court did not err in granting the government's motion in limine over his Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) objection allowing witnesses to testify about defendant's alleged track distribution, and denial of defendant's objection to testimony about money laundering under Rule 401; in denying defendant's motion for new counsel where defendant failed to show a justifiable dissatisfaction with counsel at the time of the motion and hearing; in considering defendant's crack-distribution conduct when calculating his advisory guidelines offense level; and in calculating defendant's criminal history score. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his case, arguing that his allegations of fact sufficiently stated a claim for, inter alia, breach of contract. Plaintiff's claim arose from a mortgage modification process he entered into with Chase under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). The court concluded that plaintiff stated a claim for breach of contract by alleging sufficient facts to show that the elements of a contract exist, that the conditions precedent were satisfied or waived, and that an exception to the statute of frauds applied. The court agreed with the district court that plaintiff failed to state a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding for further proceedings. View "Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of petitioner's requests for asylum, cancellation of removal, special cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that petitioner's 1989 conviction for grand theft auto was an aggravated felony which made him ineligible for cancellation of removal and special cancellation of removal; the court joined its sister circuits in concluding that Congress intended the aggravated felony bar to apply to convictions received before the enactment of the Miscellaneous and Technical Immigration and Naturalization Amendments of 1991 (MTINA) in 1991, and the court further concluded that the bar applied to petitioner's 1989 conviction; and the court declined to address petitioner's adverse credibility claims on mootness grounds. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Hernandez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Nyffeler, a residential construction company, petitioned for review of an adverse agency decision by the Review Commission. The court concluded that the petition was untimely and the district court never had authority to transfer the case to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1631. Therefore, the court concluded that it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction. View "Nyffeler Construction, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's pretermission of his application for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b). The court concluded that petitioner's prior conviction for tampering with records under Iowa Code 715A.5 was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. Therefore, petitioner was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal and the court denied the petition for review. View "Villatoro v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Thomas and Martha Duban filed suit against Waverly, alleging negligence arising out of Martha's injuries she sustained when she was stepped on by a horse at the Waverly draft horse auction. At issue was whether, as a matter of law, the exception from the Iowa Code applies, such that Waverly cannot take advantage of the general immunity provided to domesticated animal activity sponsors. The court held that, because Waverly designated or intended the northeast alley as an area for persons who were not participants to be present, the exception from Iowa Code 673.2(4) applied to these facts as a matter of law, and Waverly was subject to liability for Martha's injuries. Accordingly, the court concluded that the motions for judgment as a matter of law were properly denied. View "Duban, et al. v. Waverly Sales Co." on Justia Law