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

Plaintiff filed suit under 1983 alleging that police officers violated his constitutional rights by arresting him in his home without first obtaining a warrant to do so. The court concluded that plaintiff demonstrated sufficient facts to show a violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; a reasonable officer would have known that at the time plaintiff tried to close the door, he stood within his home and thus could not be pulled therefrom and placed under arrest in the absence of exigent circumstances; and, therefore, the court affirmed the district court's order denying qualified immunity as to Defendant Shearer. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction plaintiff's cross appeal challenging the grant of qualified immunity as to Defendants Spiker and Bone where the district court has not issued a final decision and the collateral order doctrine did not apply when a party complains that the district court should not have granted summary judgment based on qualified immunity. View "Mitchell v. Shearrer" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions stemming from charges related to his participation in a scheme to steal checks and credit cards. The court concluded that defendant could not challenge on appeal the district court's giving of the precise jury instruction that he requested; rejected defendant's argument that the district court constructively amended the indictment; and concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of identity theft. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Mariano" on Justia Law

Appellant formed RJT Investments X, LLC and began acting as RJT's tax matters partner. Thompson, later that year, entered into an illegal "Son-of-BOSS" tax shelter transaction using RJT in order to offset capital gains of approximately $21.5 million. On appeal, appellant and his wife challenged the Tax Court's order dismissing their petition challenging a notice of deficiency issued by the IRS. The court agreed with its sister circuits that outside basis was an affected item that must be determined at the partner level. Because the Tax Court did not determine appellant's outside basis in RJT, the IRS properly issued a notice of deficiency under I.R.S. Code 6230(a)(2)(A)(i). Accordingly, the Tax Court had jurisdiction over appellants' petition challenging the notice. View "Thompson, et al. v. CIR" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of the interstate kidnap, rape, and murder of a sixteen-year-old. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence of death under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court concluded that defendant's proffered evidence, taken as true, failed to establish that his trial counsel's allegedly deficient performance was prejudicial to defendant. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Purkey v. United States" on Justia Law

This case concerned the struggle for control of a family business, the Pittman Nursery Corporation (PNC). The district court ruled that Hortica, insurer for PNC, had a duty to defend three of the five lawsuits at issue. Pursuant to Ark. Code. Ann. 23-79-209(a), the court reversed the district court's denial of fees and remanded for a hearing to determine the proper amount of fees Hortica must pay to PNC for its defense in the declaratory judgment suit. The court affirmed the district court's grant of Hortica's post-verdict judgment as a matter of law (JAML) motion, grant of pre-verdict JAML on PNC's breach of fiduciary duty and punitive claims, and exclusion of certain evidence. View "Hortica-Florists' Mutual Ins. v. Pittman Nursery Corp., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action suit against CMH Homes, Vanderbilt and others in state court. The companies subsequently filed a petition in the district court alleging that plaintiffs' claims were subject to mandatory arbitration. The district court dismissed the petition. The companies argued that the district court erred by concluding that it lacked diversity jurisdiction. The court concluded that the district court correctly reasoned that Vaden undermined Advance America and required the court's departure from that precedent. Following the Vaden approach, the district court properly looked through the arbitration petition to the state court complaint to determine the amount in controversy. Nonetheless, the court remanded for the district court to calculate an amount in controversy and to determine on that basis whether it had jurisdiction over the putative class action under 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2). View "CMH Homes, Inc., et al. v. Goodner, et al." on Justia Law

The Unions filed a grievance against Alcan, claiming that Alcan violated a collective bargaining agreement. On appeal, the Unions challenged the district court's order vacating the arbitrator's award of severance pay. The court reversed the judgment because a federal court must defer to the arbitrator's interpretation where the arbitrator was at least arguably construing or applying the collective bargaining agreement. The court denied the Unions' request for attorneys' fees. Alcan acted promptly to seek an order vacating the arbitration award and the company did not act dishonestly or in bad faith. View "Alcan Packaging Co. v. Graphic Communications, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Trinity alleging wrongful termination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-1 et seq.; the North Dakota whistleblower statute, N.D. Cent. Code 34-01-20(1); and N.D. Cent. Code 34-01-04 (the intimidation statute). On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Trinity and the denial of her motion for a default judgment. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment or default judgment, which asked the court to grant a dispositive discovery sanction against Trinity for its willful pattern of action in failing to comply with the scheduling order. Plaintiff failed to advance any evidence indicating that Trinity did in fact replace plaintiff with someone substantially younger, that she was treated differently than any other similarly situated male employee, that plaintiff engaged in a protected activity under the whistleblower statute, and that there was a private right of action under the intimidation statute. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Holmes v. Trinity Health" on Justia Law

This case arose when DocMagic, provider of mortgage loan document preparation software, filed various claims against Lenders One, provider of mortgage products and services, stemming from the parties' service contract (Agreement), and Lenders One filed various counterclaims. Per the Agreement, Lenders One agreed to supply DocMagic with a list of all Lenders One's current members and refer, market, and promote DocMagic's products and services to the members. On appeal, the parties dispute the district court's award of attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs. As a preliminary matter, the court used de novo review in order to determine which litigant was the prevailing party and the court applied an abuse of discretion standard regarding the district court's award of fees and costs. On the merits, the court concluded that the district court did not err in designating Lenders One as the prevailing party where the district court considered the totality of the case and reasonably determined the prevailing party for purposes of the parties' contract. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's award of fees and costs. View "DocMagic, Inc. v. The Mortgage Partnership" on Justia Law

Relators brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1)(A) and (B), alleging that the Mayo Foundation and others billed Medicare for surgical pathology services it did not provide. The government intervened and the parties settled. Relators then filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting additional claims. On appeal, relators challenged the district court's dismissal of their additional claim that Mayo fraudulently billed for services it did not provide whenever it prepared and read a permanent tissue slide but did not prepare a separate written report of that service. As a preliminary issue, the court concluded that relators satisfied their burden of showing that the public disclosure bar did not deprive the court of jurisdiction over relators' claim. On the merits, the court concluded that nowhere in the Medicare regulations or in the American Medical Association Codebook has the court found a requirement that physicians using the CPT codes for surgical pathology services must prepare the additional written reports that relators claimed Mayo fraudulently failed to provide. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Ketroser, et al. v. Mayo Foundation, et al." on Justia Law