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

Appellant, convicted of robbing a bank and killing a bank security guard, appealed the district court's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend the district court's judgment. The court rejected appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; the district court did not err in denying appellant an evidentiary hearing regarding counsel's alleged failure to adequately investigate his mental health; and the court rejected appellant's Fifth Amendment Indictment Clause claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment in all respects. View "Holder v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture marijuana. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court concluded that the strip of grass and weeds on defendant's property constituted an open field for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment; because the officer was within an open field when he looked through defendant's fence, his actions did not constitute a trespassory search; and although defendant had a subjective expectation of privacy in the back yard, the gaps in the fence, through which the back yard could be seen unaided, rendered the expectation not one society was willing to recognize as reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Mathias" on Justia Law

Lexington sought a declaration that it owed Integrity neither coverage nor defenses under an errors and omissions (E&O) insurance policy. Fidelity intervened and subsequently moved for a stay. The court concluded that the district court enjoyed discretion when applying Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Detco Indus., Inc. and it did not abuse its discretion in denying Fidelity's motion for a stay. The court also concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment on Fidelity's indemnification claims where the two exclusions in the E&O policy, the prior-knowledge exclusion and the lien-waiver exclusion, independently and alternately precluded coverage for the claims as articulated by Fidelity on appeal. The court did not consider the propriety of the district court's election to address third-party beneficiary status nor its substantive determination as to that issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Lexington Ins. Co. v. Fidelity Nat'l Fin." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, the city and four officers, alleging, among other things, Fourth Amendment excessive force violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983; and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12132; and Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794; and state tort law. The events at issue occurred when officers arrived at plaintiff's home after his mother called 911, reporting that he was having a psychotic episode and had attacked a member of the family. The court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity and denial of summary judgment to Officer Martinec on plaintiff's Fourth Amendment excessive force claim in securing plaintiff; reversed the denial of qualified immunity and denial of summary judgment for Officers Ricker, Jones, and Raders on plaintiff's Fourth Amendment excessive force claims as to these individual officers; reversed the denial of qualified immunity for all the officers and the denial of summary judgment as to the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims; reversed the denial of the city's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's ADA and Rehabilitation Act failure to train claims; and remanded for further proceedings. View "Roberts v. City of Omaha, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a truck driver for Red Racks, which was operated by DAV, filed suit under section 306 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA-LU) Technical Corrections Act (TCA), Pub. L. 110-244, Title III, section 306, 122 Stat. 1572, 1620, claiming that he was a "covered" employee eligible for overtime. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the district court properly determined that a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1), covered employee under the TCA was one driving a vehicle with a gross motor vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. The district court also correctly determined that plaintiff was not a covered employee, where the trucks he drove actually weighed less than 10,000 pounds, and properly granted summary judgment to DAV and denied partial summary judgment to plaintiff. View "McCall v. Disabled American Veterans, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of his application for social security disability insurance benefits. The court concluded that the ALJ met his duty to fully and fairly develop the record; the district court correctly upheld the ALJ's determination of plaintiff's residual functioning capacity (RFC); and the court rejected plaintiff's contention that the ALJ used an improper standard to discount plaintiff's credibility. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the SSA. View "Kamann v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that the deputy sheriff used excessive force against him. The court concluded that precedent in place at the time of this incident suggested that the presence of only de minimus injuries could preclude a claim for excessive force. In this instance, the amount of force that the sheriff used did not cause more than de minimus injury. Therefore, the sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate plaintiff's then clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the sheriff. View "Bishop v. Deputy Dale Glazier, et al." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the SEC's civil enforcement action against former infoUSA financial officers, including defendant. A jury found that defendant violated various securities laws and the district court imposed several civil penalties. Defendant subsequently appealed. The court concluded that defendant could not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence against him because he failed to file a postverdict motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) after the district court denied his Rule 50(a) motion. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in admitting the testimony of the SEC's expert witness where the expert's use of the primary-purpose test as a means for applying the integrally-and-directly-related standard did not misconstrue a legal issue or alter the legal standard that defendant was required to apply as CFO. The court held, however, that it was not clear whether the jury made the finding necessary for the SEC's section 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(5), claim and, based on the claims the SEC asserted against defendant, the bad-faith finding was unnecessary to a final resolution of the matter. Accordingly, the court vacated the conclusion that defendant violated section 13(b)(5) and the finding that defendant acted in bad faith, remanding for further proceedings. The court affirmed the case in all other respects. View "SEC v. Dean, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of his application for disability benefits and supplemental security income (SSI). The court concluded that the ALJ did not err in discounting the most severe subjective complaints of pain because the ALJ properly applied Polaski v. Heckler and provided valid reasons for discounting plaintiff and his mother's testimony; the ALJ properly weighed the opinions of plaintiff's treating physicians; the ALJ properly used the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (the "Grids") to determine whether there was substantial gainful employment plaintiff could perform; and the court agreed with the ALJ's conclusion that plaintiff did not satisfy the criteria for Listing 1.04 or any other listing in the Adult Listing of Impairments. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "McDade v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the Cafe and its owner and manager for willfully violating the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's denial of their motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that plaintiffs, as aliens without work authorization, lacked standing to sue. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the FLSA did not allow employers to exploit any employee's immigration status or to profit from hiring unauthorized aliens in violation of federal law. View "Lucas, et al. v. Jerusalem Cafe, LLC, et al" on Justia Law