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

Darrell Sanders was arrested after two separate incidents in Kirkwood, Missouri, where he approached two minor girls, C.B. and P.H., near an elementary school. Sanders circled the school in his minivan, asked C.B. to see her feet, and invited P.H. to his van, making a suggestive statement. Upon arrest, Sanders admitted to having sexual thoughts about children, acknowledged his interactions with the girls made him feel excited and scared, and confessed to possessing and viewing child pornography on the same day as the incidents. A search of his devices revealed multiple images and videos of child pornography.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri accepted Sanders’s guilty plea to receipt and possession of child pornography. At sentencing, the court applied a five-level increase under the United States Sentencing Guidelines for engaging in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor, based on Sanders’s conduct with C.B. and P.H. The court determined an advisory guideline range of 121 to 151 months and sentenced Sanders to 132 months’ imprisonment. Sanders objected to the application of the enhancement and to certain factual statements in the presentence report, but the district court overruled his objections.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its application of the guidelines de novo. The appellate court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Sanders’s conduct constituted attempted enticement of a minor under Missouri law, supporting the five-level enhancement. The court also found that any factual error in the presentence report was harmless and did not affect the outcome. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the district court. View "United States v. Sanders" on Justia Law

In 2024, Minnesota enacted a law that revised the criteria for classifying independent contractors in the construction industry, expanding a previous nine-part test to a fourteen-part test. Several construction industry organizations and a general contractor challenged the law, arguing that certain provisions were unconstitutionally vague and that the civil penalties authorized by the statute violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The plaintiffs specifically objected to requirements regarding written contracts, invoicing, expense responsibility, and profit or loss realization, as well as the potential for significant civil penalties for noncompliance.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the law. The court found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims. The plaintiffs then appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the law, as they alleged specific conduct targeted by the statute and faced a credible threat of enforcement. However, the court concluded that the challenged statutory terms were sufficiently clear for people of ordinary intelligence and did not encourage arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. The court also determined that the plaintiffs’ excessive fines claim was premature, as no penalties had yet been imposed and Minnesota law requires a proportionality analysis before penalties are assessed. Because the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, the court found no basis for a preliminary injunction and affirmed the lower court’s judgment. View "MN Chapter of Assoc. Builders v. Blissenbach" on Justia Law

Iowa enacted a law making it a state crime for certain noncitizens who had previously been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed from the United States to enter or be found in Iowa. The law also required state judges to order such individuals to return to the country from which they entered and prohibited state courts from pausing prosecutions based on pending or possible federal immigration status determinations. Two noncitizens residing in Iowa, both of whom had previously been subject to federal removal orders but later lawfully reentered the United States, along with a membership-based immigrant advocacy organization, challenged the law, arguing it was preempted by federal immigration law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa found that the plaintiffs had standing and granted a preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Iowa law was preempted by federal law under both conflict and field preemption doctrines. The district court also found that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if the law went into effect and that the balance of equities and public interest favored an injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion, reviewing legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs had standing and were likely to succeed on the merits because every application of the Iowa law would conflict with federal immigration law by interfering with the discretion Congress grants to federal officials. The court also found that the other factors for a preliminary injunction were met. The Eighth Circuit remanded for the district court to determine the appropriate scope of the injunction in light of recent Supreme Court guidance. View "IA Migrant Movement for Justice v. Bird" on Justia Law

Pro-Mark Services, Inc., a general contracting construction company, obtained payment and performance bonds from Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company as required by the Miller Act. To facilitate this, Pro-Mark and other indemnitors entered into a General Indemnity Agreement (GIA) with Hartford, assigning certain rights related to bonded contracts. Later, Pro-Mark entered into two substantial business loan agreements with Capital Credit Union (CCU), secured by most of Pro-Mark’s assets, including deposit accounts. Recognizing potential conflicts over asset priorities, Hartford and CCU executed an Intercreditor Collateral Agreement (ICA) to define their respective rights and priorities in Pro-Mark’s assets, distinguishing between “Bank Priority Collateral” and “Surety Priority Collateral,” and specifying how proceeds should be distributed.After Pro-Mark filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of North Dakota, CCU placed an administrative freeze on Pro-Mark’s deposit accounts and moved for relief from the automatic stay to exercise its right of setoff against the funds in those accounts. Hartford objected, claiming a superior interest in the funds based on the GIA and ICA. The bankruptcy court held hearings and, after considering the parties’ briefs and stipulated facts, granted CCU’s motion, allowing it to set off the funds. The bankruptcy court found CCU had met its burden for setoff and determined Hartford did not have a sufficient interest in the deposited funds, focusing on the GIA and North Dakota’s Uniform Commercial Code, and not the ICA.On appeal, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit held that while the bankruptcy court had authority to adjudicate the priority dispute, it erred by failing to analyze the parties’ respective rights under the ICA, which governed the priority of distributions. The Panel reversed the bankruptcy court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Capital Credit Union" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, who worked for a bank that operated a branch inside a public high school, was terminated from her employment after she publicly criticized the local school district’s mask mandate on social media and at school events. The bank’s operation at the school was part of a partnership in which the bank provided funds and services to the school district. The plaintiff’s children attended schools in the district, and she was active in school-related activities. After a series of confrontations and a critical Facebook post about a school board member, the school superintendent communicated with the bank’s branch manager, expressing disapproval of the plaintiff’s conduct and requesting that she be barred from school property. The bank subsequently suspended and then fired the plaintiff, citing her conduct and the school’s ban.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment to all defendants, finding that the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights were not violated and that there was insufficient evidence of a conspiracy or tortious interference. The court applied the Pickering balancing test, treating the plaintiff as a government contractor, and found no actionable retaliation. It also found no evidence of a meeting of the minds between the bank and the school district, and held that the superintendent and other officials were entitled to qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part. The court held that the plaintiff was not a government employee or contractor for First Amendment purposes and was entitled to ordinary citizen protections. It found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to decide whether the superintendent, the bank, and the branch manager retaliated against the plaintiff for protected speech, and whether the superintendent tortiously interfered with her employment. However, the court affirmed summary judgment for the school board chair and the school district, finding insufficient evidence of their direct involvement or policy liability. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "McNeally v. HomeTown Bank" on Justia Law

A Minnesota resident filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy, listing her former live-in partner as a disputed creditor. After the discovery of a nonexempt interest in a lake cabin, creditors were invited to file claims. The former partner, initially acting pro se and later with counsel, filed several claims seeking reimbursement for property and funds allegedly provided to the debtor. These claims were reduced and ultimately settled for $9,000, with the debtor withdrawing her objections. Shortly thereafter, the creditor filed a new claim for $400,000, alleging personal injury torts such as assault, battery, and emotional distress, supported by a draft complaint. The debtor objected, arguing the claim was untimely, unsupported, and barred by various defenses.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota sustained the debtor’s objection and disallowed the personal injury claim. The court applied the narrowest test for “personal injury tort” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5), finding the claim did not involve bodily injury and thus was not a personal injury tort. The court also found the claim barred by res judicata and judicial estoppel, reasoning that the prior settlement and proceedings precluded relitigation of the same issues.On appeal, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. The panel held that, under any of the three recognized tests, the creditor’s claim was for damages for a “personal injury tort.” Therefore, the bankruptcy court erred in determining it had jurisdiction to finally adjudicate the claim. The panel reversed the bankruptcy court’s order disallowing the claim and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, directing that the district court must try the personal injury tort claim as required by statute. View "Arrieta v. Smith" on Justia Law

Nilfisk, Inc. leased a large warehouse building in Springdale, Arkansas from Fort Worth Partners, LLC under an industrial lease that required Nilfisk to maintain property insurance covering the full replacement cost of the building, excluding certain foundation and below-grade structures. In March 2022, a tornado destroyed the building, and Nilfisk’s insurance coverage at the time was significantly less than the full replacement cost required by the lease. Fort Worth Partners sued Nilfisk and its parent company for breach of contract, seeking damages equal to the full replacement cost that would have been covered by adequate insurance.The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment. It denied Nilfisk’s motion and granted Fort Worth Partners’ motion in part, finding Nilfisk had breached its insurance obligation under the lease. The court held a bench trial to determine damages, considering expert testimony from both parties. It awarded Fort Worth Partners damages for the building’s replacement cost, excluding foundation damages per the lease, and also awarded attorney’s fees and costs, with reductions for limited success and prevailing local rates. Nilfisk appealed the denial of summary judgment and the damages award, while Fort Worth Partners cross-appealed aspects of the damages and fee awards.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment for Fort Worth Partners and its denial of Nilfisk’s summary judgment motion. The appellate court held that Fort Worth Partners’ claim was timely, as each deficient insurance policy constituted a separate breach with its own limitations period. The court also affirmed the district court’s interpretation of the lease excluding all foundation damages and upheld the reduction in attorney’s fees. However, it reversed and remanded the damages award for unrebutted costs, instructing the district court to make specific factual findings supporting that portion of the award. View "Fort Worth Partners, LLC v. Nilfisk, Inc." on Justia Law

An inmate in Missouri, facing imminent execution, requested that his two daughters—both ordained ministers—be allowed to serve as his spiritual advisors in the execution chamber. One daughter would administer communion and anoint him with oil, then move to the viewing area, while the other would enter the chamber to pray over and touch him during the execution. The Missouri Department of Corrections denied this request, citing security concerns, but offered alternatives: a non-relative spiritual advisor, prison clergy, or his attorney could perform the rituals, with his daughters directing the proceedings from behind glass.After exhausting administrative remedies and just five days before his scheduled execution, the inmate filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. He alleged that the Department’s refusal violated his rights under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). He sought a preliminary injunction and a stay of execution. The district court denied his requests and dismissed the case with prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the denial of a stay of execution. The court focused on whether the inmate had shown a likelihood of success on the merits, specifically whether the Department’s policy imposed a “substantial burden” on his religious exercise under RLUIPA. The court found that, while the inmate preferred his daughters as spiritual advisors, he did not demonstrate that only they could perform the rituals in accordance with his beliefs. The court concluded that the Department’s alternatives did not significantly inhibit his religious exercise and that security concerns justified the restriction. The Eighth Circuit denied the motion for a stay of execution. View "Shockley v. Adams" on Justia Law

Edwin Diaz was stopped by law enforcement in Ida Grove, Iowa, after Deputy Clausen observed his truck parked with only one working headlight, broken taillights, and impeding traffic. Upon approaching the vehicle, Clausen smelled marijuana and saw Diaz drop an item later identified as methamphetamine. Diaz and his passenger, Mikaela Breen, were arrested and charged with state drug offenses. Days later, Breen reported to police that Diaz had coerced her into signing a statement taking responsibility for the drugs found in the truck. Based on Breen’s account and Diaz’s criminal history, law enforcement obtained a warrant to search Diaz’s residence, where they found drugs, paraphernalia, and a firearm.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa reviewed Diaz’s motion to suppress evidence from both the truck and home searches. The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion, finding that the truck search was lawful due to probable cause from observed traffic violations and the smell of marijuana, and that the good faith exception applied to the home search despite questions about the warrant’s nexus to the residence. The district judge agreed that the truck search was justified by probable cause and that the good faith exception protected the home search evidence, even though the warrant affidavit did not establish a sufficient nexus between the drugs and Diaz’s home.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion. The court held that the initial encounter with Diaz was supported by reasonable suspicion and probable cause due to multiple traffic violations and the odor of marijuana, justifying the truck search. For the home search, the court found that the Leon good faith exception applied because it was not entirely unreasonable for officers to believe that a drug dealer would store contraband at his residence, even if the warrant affidavit lacked a direct nexus. The judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Diaz" on Justia Law

Anthony Tucker was investigated after child pornography was discovered in a Google Drive account linked to two of his email addresses, one of which he had listed in his sex-offender registration. The investigation revealed that Tucker had previously pleaded guilty in Iowa state court to committing lascivious acts with a child, specifically involving sexual contact with a 13-year-old girl. Based on the evidence found in his Google Drive, Tucker was charged in federal court with possession and receipt of child pornography.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa presided over Tucker’s trial. During the proceedings, the government introduced evidence of Tucker’s prior conviction for lascivious acts with a child. Tucker’s counsel objected to the admission of this evidence, arguing it was unduly prejudicial. The district court overruled the objection, finding the evidence admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 414, which allows evidence of prior child molestation offenses in cases involving similar charges. The jury ultimately found Tucker guilty on both counts.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed whether the district court erred in admitting evidence of Tucker’s prior conviction. The Eighth Circuit held that Rule 414 permits the admission of evidence of prior acts of child molestation based on the conduct involved, not merely the elements of the prior offense. The court rejected Tucker’s argument that the categorical approach should apply, clarifying that Rule 414 focuses on the specific facts of the prior conduct. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 403, as the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Tucker" on Justia Law