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

SMI, a supermarket retailer, and XPO, a logistics company, both appeal the district court's orders and judgment in a breach of contract and tort dispute arising out of the parties' business relationship.The Eighth Circuit concluded that the parties' agreement bars SMI from recovering non-direct damages from XPO; the Limitation of Liability Provision contractually limits both parties' liability to each other, but does not exonerate them, and is therefore not contrary to Missouri public policy; the Limitation of Liability Provision does not violate Missouri public policy simply because it prevents SMI from recovering its mitigation damages; there was no error in the district court's determination at summary judgment that three categories of SMI's claimed damages were consequential damages; there was no error in granting judgment as a matter of law on SMI's negligence counterclaim where SMI has not provided sufficient evidence to show that XPO breached a duty of care other than its contractual duty under the agreement; there was no error in the district court's determination that two emails SMI sought to exclude were protected by the attorney-client privilege; and there was no error in awarding statutory prejudgment interest to XPO.In regard to XPO's arguments on appeal, the court concluded that there was no error in the district court's denial of judgment as a matter of law on SMI's breach of contract counterclaim, and there was no error in the district court's determination that XPO was not entitled to attorney's fees under the agreement. View "Jacobson Warehouse Co., Inc. v. Schnuck Markets, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress and rejected defendant's Franks challenge where the alleged omissions were not clearly critical to the issuing judge's finding of probable cause. Without deciding whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry, the court concluded that any illegality in the entry was not the but-for cause of obtaining the evidence.The court also concluded that defendant's contention that the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. Finally, the court concluded that there was no error in the district court's calculation of a base offense level under USSG 4B1.2(b) based on a prior controlled substance offense; in imposing an enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(a)(3) based on the length of the shotgun's barrel; and in imposing an enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possession of the weapon in connection with another offense - assault by use or display of a dangerous weapon. View "United States v. Miller" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for attempting to entice a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction; defendant's claims of several instances of prosecutorial misconduct were rejected; and there was no error in the district court's denial of defendant's motion to compel production of a sealed document explaining why a task force officer was involuntarily removed from the Homeland Security Investigations task force. In this case, the documents contain neither evidence directly related to defendant's case nor evidence that is material to his guilt or punishment. View "United States v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), alleging that Planned Parenthood violated Iowa law by dispensing extra cycles of oral contraceptives without a physician’s order and that Planned Parenthood illegally billed Iowa Medicaid Enterprise (IME) for post-abortion related procedures.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Planned Parenthood, concluding that plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead with particularity, pursuant to the heightened pleading standards of the FCA, her claim regarding the dispensing of oral contraceptives. Furthermore, even if plaintiff is right that Planned Parenthood submitted a false claim or statement as to Patients C, D, E and F, she fails to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact over whether those claims and statements were knowingly false. View "Thayer v. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence of drugs found during a safety inspection of a semi transporting three vehicles, one of which contained the drugs. The court concluded that defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy because defendant did not prove that he owned the vehicle that the drugs were found in or that he was its sender or intended recipient. Therefore, defendant had no standing to challenge the search and the court did not reach the merits of his Fourth Amendment claim. View "United States v. Sierra-Serrano" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the City of Bloomington, the Hennepin County Attorney, and two Bloomington police officers, seeking a declaration that a state harassment statute and a city ordinance are unconstitutional under the First Amendment, injunctive relief against enforcement of those laws, and nominal damages. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from her desire to produce photographs and video recordings of activities in a public park, where the images captured would include children.The Eighth Circuit dismissed as moot plaintiff's challenge to the harassment statute, which has been superseded by the state legislature; affirmed as to plaintiff's claims for damages against the police officers and the City based on alleged enforcement of the former harassment statute; and reversed and directed entry of judgment for plaintiff on her claim that the city ordinance forbidding photography and video recording in the public park is unconstitutional under the First Amendment as applied to her activity on which the claim is based. The court explained that, because the ordinance is significantly over-inclusive with respect to the City's asserted interest, it is not narrowly tailored and fails strict scrutiny as applied to plaintiff's proposed conduct. View "Ness v. City of Bloomington" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence from a warrantless search of a vehicle. In this case, a state trooper stopped defendant's rental car for a traffic violation and conducted a warrantless search of the trunk where the trooper found over 15 kilograms of a mixture or substance containing cocaine.Considering the totality of the circumstances, the court concluded that the trooper had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop where numerous facts alerted the experienced officer that criminal activity was afoot. Given the friendly atmosphere, rapport, and conversation that had developed between the trooper and defendant, coupled with defendant's characteristics, demeanor, and responses throughout the encounter, the court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding defendant voluntarily consented to the search. View "United States v. Gastelum" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment declining to exercise its discretion to reduce defendant's sentence under Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. The court has repeatedly held that the First Step Act does not mandate that the district court analyze 18 U.S.C. 3553 factors for a permissive reduction in sentence. In this case, the sentencing judge was uniquely positioned to consider the many factors necessary in exercising the court's ultimate discretion and his plain statement regarding its decision not to exercise its discretion closes the matter. Defendant's remaining arguments have been clearly rejected by the court or are without merit. View "United States v. Mueller" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the government in an action where the government sought to revoke defendant's citizenship because he entered the country and sought asylum using a false identity and then concealed this deception when later applying for naturalization under his true identity.The court concluded that the plain language of the U.S. Attorney Rule, 8 U.S.C. 1451(a), which requires the local U.S. Attorney to institute an action to revoke naturalization, and its placement in the statute, indicate that the U.S. Attorney Rule is not jurisdictional, and there is an absence of Supreme Court decisions treating similar provisions as invoking subject matter jurisdiction. In this case, the district court did not err in holding that the undisputed evidence showed that revocation of defendant's citizenship was warranted based on illegal procurement of his naturalization and procurement of his naturalization by concealment or misrepresentation of a material fact. View "United States v. Daifullah" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a utility-locating service, USIC, in an action brought by Spire, a gas company, and its insurers, seeking full indemnification from USIC, as well as a declaratory judgment that USIC would be liable for all future settlements as well, without regard to fault. The court held that, under Missouri's anti-indemnification law, Mo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 433.100.1, Spire could not use the parties' contract to seek indemnification for its own negligence or wrongdoing. The court explained that, even if Spire is right that "construction work" does not ordinarily include marking and flagging the location of gas lines, it makes no difference here because Missouri has adopted a broader definition of "construction work." View "Spire Missouri, Inc. v. USIC Locating Services, LLC" on Justia Law