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

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the firearm and other evidence as a result of an inventory search of his vehicle. Based on the totality of the circumstances - an emergency call, the history of criminal activity in the area, the behavior of the group, and defendant's own behavior - the officers had reasonable suspicion to justify a Terry stop of defendant. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress. View "United States v. Hightower" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, appealed the district court's order dismissing his post-conviction motion to vacate and set aside the conviction and sentence. The court affirmed the judgment, rejecting defendant's 36 claims of ineffective assistance of pretrial, trial, and appellate counsel. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing defendant's motion without an evidentiary hearing. View "Winters v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged various causes of action against the maker of the generic drug (Pliva), brand defendants, and others after she was injured by the prescription medication metoclopramide. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of brand defendants and dismissal of her claims against Pliva. The court denied plaintiff's motion to supplement the record, finding no compelling reason to allow plaintiff to do so; the district court did not err in determining plaintiff's claims against brand defendants failed as a matter of law because she stipulated that she had not ingested a product manufactured by brand defendants; reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's non-warning design defect and breach of implied warranty claims and remanded for further consideration; and because there was no causal link between Pliva's failure to incorporate the 2004 labeling change and plaintiff's injury, the district court's dismissal of that claim was not error. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bell v. Pfizer, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued his employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 623, and the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA), Iowa Code 216.6, alleging that he was discharged from his employment due to his age. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. The court concluded that, taken together, plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to allow a rational factfinder to find that the employer's proffered reasons for terminating him were pretextual. Plaintiff's evidence was not inconsistent with a reasonable inference of age discrimination and, therefore, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ridout v. JBS USA, LLC" on Justia Law

Doe Run commenced a declaratory action seeking to enforce Lexington's contractual duty to defend Doe Run per its Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies in two underlying lawsuits (the Briley Lawsuit and the McSpadden Lawsuit). These underlying lawsuits sought damages arising out of Doe Run's operation of a five-hundred-acre waste pile (Leadwood Pile). The court concluded that the pollution exclusions in the CGL policies precluded a duty to defend Doe Run in the Briley Lawsuit. The court concluded, however, that the McSpadden Lawsuit included allegations and claims that were not unambiguously barred from coverage by the pollution exclusions in the policies. The McSpadden Lawsuit alleged that the distribution of toxic materials harmed plaintiffs, without specifying how that harm occurred. The McSpadden complaint also alleged that Doe Run caused bodily injury or property damage when it left the Leadwood Pile open and available for use by the public without posting warning signs. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Doe Run Resources Corp. v. Lexington Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Doe Run commenced a declaratory judgment action seeking to enforce Lexington's contractual duty to defend Doe Run per its Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies in an underlying lawsuit. The underlying lawsuit alleged environmental property damage resulting from Doe Run's mine and mill operations. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that Lexington had no duty to defend because the policies' absolute pollution exclusions unambiguously barred coverage of all claims asserted in the underlying lawsuit. View "Doe Run Resources Corp. v. Lexington Ins. Co." on Justia Law

IRTL challenged the constitutionality of several Iowa campaign-finance laws, an administrative rule, and two forms. The court concluded, inter alia, that IRTL lacked standing to challenge the definitions of "political committee" and "permanent organization" because it faced no credible threat or present or future prosecution; the first two sentences of Iowa Code subsection 68A.404(3), the second sentence of subsection 68A.404(3)(a), the entirety of subsection 68A.404(4)(a), the first and third sentences of Iowa Administrative Code rule 351-4.9(15), and Form Ind-Exp-O were constitutional as applied to IRTL and groups whose major purpose was not nominating or electing candidates; the first and third sentences of subsection 68A.404(3)(a), the second sentence of Iowa Administrative Code rule 351-4.9(15), the entirety of subsections 68A.404(3)(a)(1) and 68A.402B(3), and Form Dr-3 were unconstitutional as applied to IRTL and groups whose major purpose was not nominating or electing candidates; and Iowa Code section 68A.503 was constitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Iowa Right To Life Committee v. Tooker, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of U.S. Bank on her claims of discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-1 et seq. The court concluded that summary judgment in favor of U.S. Bank on plaintiff's discrimination claim was proper where the bank had a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for issuing a written warning and where plaintiff had not met her burden of demonstrating pretext. The court also concluded that summary judgment in favor of U.S. Bank was proper where plaintiff failed to show a causal connection between her protected activity and the bank's alleged adverse employment action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Muor v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Assoc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence stemming from various drug and firearm offenses. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, nor did it abuse its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial where the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that there was an agreement to distribute heroin in the Waterloo area, that defendant was aware of this agreement, and that defendant knowingly contributed to the furtherance of this agreement; the district court's failure to include the names of coconspirators in the jury instructions was not a constructive amendment of the indictment; no variance existed between the indictment and the government's proof; the district court did not err in giving certain jury instructions; and the court rejected defendant's contention that his sentence was inconsistent with the district court's oral pronouncement of sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release. Defendant was released from custody and his sentence was fully discharged before his appeal was heard. The court dismissed defendant's appeal as moot, concluding that the possibility the supervised release violation might increase defendant's sentence for a future conviction was insufficient to maintain the appeal; defendant lacked any authority in his argument that he would suffer social stigma as a result of the violation; and defendant's appeal did not fall within the exception to mootness cases capable of repetition yet evading review. View "United States v. Dunlap, Jr." on Justia Law