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

Plaintiff filed suit against Safeco after the insurance company denied her underinsured motorist insurance (UIM) coverage. The district court granted summary judgment to Safeco.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that this case does not involve a set-off within a policy but stacking of separate policies; the anti-stacking provision in the policy unambiguously limits the total of plaintiff's UIM coverage to the highest applicable limit; and Safeco's coverage is not illusory. Therefore, Safeco's anti-stacking provision does not preclude Safeco's excess coverage from ever applying—it simply prevents plaintiff from stacking coverage from different policies when she has already received the highest applicable limit of UIM coverage. View "Johnson v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was found to have violated the University's policies prohibiting sexual harassment and stalking on the basis of sex, and was suspended for two years, he filed suit against the Curators of the University and four individual Title IX investigators.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to compel and the district court's discovery ruling did not prevent plaintiff from adequately opposing defendants' motion for summary judgment; summary judgment on the Title VI claim was appropriate because plaintiff failed to present evidence that his proffered comparators, including the two white students mentioned, were graduate students and thus similarly situated to him in all relevant respects; summary judgment on plaintiff's void for vagueness claim was appropriate because the University's policies provide adequate notice of what conduct is prohibited and the individual defendant's inability to agree on the exact scope of prohibited conduct or the definition of words in the policies does not mean the policies are subject to arbitrary enforcement; summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation claim was appropriate in its entirety; dismissal of the substantial overbreadth claim was appropriate where plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the University's policies against sexual harassment and stalking have a real and substantial effect on protected speech; dismissal of the sex discrimination under Title IX claim was appropriate where the complaint fails to plausibly allege that the investigation reached an outcome against the weight of the evidence or allege any additional facts suggesting bias based on his sex; and dismissal of the discrimination claims under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) were appropriate where plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for sex discrimination for reasons similar to his Title IX claims. Finally, although the court believed that it was error for the district court to dismiss the state law race discrimination claim, the error was harmless in light of the court's conclusion. View "Rowles v. Curators of the University of Missouri" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 42-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of theft of trade secrets and one count of making a false statement to the FBI, related to his access and use of confidential company information belonging to his former employer, DuPont, Inc.The court held that defendant's sentence was procedurally reasonable where the district court committed no error in its factual findings as it related to its decision to vary upwards in imposing defendant's sentence; the district court committed no error in its application of the Guidelines to formulate defendant's sentencing range; and the district court did not rely on clearly erroneous facts as a basis to increase defendant's sentence. The court also held that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court did not err in considering defendant's traffic infractions and past drug conviction in fashioning his sentence. Furthermore, the district court did not err by utilizing its wide latitude in assigning weight to specific sentencing factors, and nothing in the record demonstrates that the district court imposed a disproportionate sentence for defendant's crimes. View "United States v. Isler" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a police officer, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 based on the police department's investigation of him after it received allegations that plaintiff had purchased illegal steroids and interfered with a department investigation. In this case, defendant's home, police locker, police cruiser, and wife's vehicle were searched. Furthermore, his blood and urine were taken and analyzed.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim that Sergeant Koepke had unlawfully detained plaintiff in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights where, taken together, the facts do not establish that Koepke lacked sufficient reasonable and articulable suspicion that plaintiff might be involved in criminal activity. Therefore, Koepke was entitled to qualified immunity. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims that Koepke had unlawfully arrested plaintiff where Koepke was entitled to qualified immunity because the length of plaintiff's detention was not unreasonable under the circumstances. The court also affirmed summary judgment based on qualified immunity for Captain Peterson and Legal Advisor Peters and concluded that any omitted material facts from their warrant application was immaterial. Finally, the court affirmed summary judgment based on qualified immunity to Sergeant Reynolds where Reynold's search of plaintiff's wife's vehicle, which was not the vehicle identified in the search warrant, was authorized under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. View "Cronin v. Peterson" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography involving a prepubescent minor. On remand, after denying defendant's request to withdraw his guilty plea, the district court imposed a sentence of 151 months imprisonment and supervised release for life, and imposed a special assessment of $5,000 pursuant to the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015.The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion and that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court clearly weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors, including defendant's postsentencing rehabilitation. However, the court found that the district court clearly erred in its implicit finding that defendant was non-indigent and thus in imposing the special assessment. In this case, the district court clearly erred in not accounting for defendant's substantial negative net worth when it found he had the ability to pay in the future. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "United States v. Barthman" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by a jury of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm; one count of simple possession of methamphetamine; and one count of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a narcotics offense.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress and held that the district court did not err in finding that the officers' search of defendant's person was reasonable. In this case, officers ordered defendant to the ground and patted him down, they knew he had been riding in a stolen vehicle and they knew that the driver had not complied with the officers' demands following the stop. Furthermore, at that point in the tense standoff, officers possessed reasonable suspicion that defendant's possible involvement with the stolen vehicle made him guilty of tampering or car theft, and they were permitted to pat him down for weapons pursuant to Terry v. Ohio. Therefore, the guns and drugs found during the pat-down were admissible. View "United States v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Nelson and Sykes pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute heroin, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846. Both were serving state sentences at the time of their convictions. The district court sentenced Nelson to 77 months’ imprisonment and Sykes to 60 months’ imprisonment, with each federal sentence to run partially concurrent with the undischarged term of the respective defendant’s state sentences. The government had agreed to recommend sentences fully concurrent to the undischarged terms of state imprisonment. Both federal sentences were within the applicable advisory guideline range.The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The district court addressed at length the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), and the reasons given were sufficient to explain the court’s exercise of discretion on the question of concurrent sentencing. Neither state sentence was attributable solely to an offense that was relevant conduct to the federal drug conspiracy. View "United States v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Auge, an experienced industrial-equipment salesman, started with Fairchild in 2013, with a base salary of $50,000 and a commission of 30% on the gross profits from most new equipment sales. Days after the company’s plan for calculating compensation changed in 2017, Auge abruptly quit. Fairchild deposited his commissions into his bank account. He demanded more. He believed he was entitled to a 30% commission on all anticipated gross profits, not just those “booked” in 2017. He also requested immediate payment on several “rental purchase option[s],” even though Fairchild’s policy was not to pay commissions on these rent-to-own arrangements until the end of the rental term. In Fairchild’s view, Auge lost those commissions once he quit.Auge sued for breach of contract and for alleged violations of the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act. The district court dismissed the suit. The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part but reversed with respect to “rental purchase options,” finding the contract provision ambiguous so that summary judgment was inappropriate. Fairchild owed Auge nothing for other commission, so the Act did not apply. View "Auge v. Fairchild Equipment, Inc." on Justia Law

Hensley, charged with attempted enticement of a minor to engage in illegal sexual conduct (18 U.S.C. 2422(b)); attempted production of child pornography after having previously been convicted of child sex crimes (18 U.S.C. 2251(a) and 2251(e)), and possession of child pornography after having previously been convicted of child sex crimes (18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B)), moved to suppress evidence of statements he made during a custodial interrogation. The district court denied the motion, finding that officers had reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle and that the encounter became consensual by the time questioning began. Hensley was convicted on all counts and was sentenced to 420 months’ imprisonment.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. The court also rejected challenges to the instruction on how the jury could properly consider the evidence of his prior convictions and illustrative examples regarding a “substantial step.” Any error in denying the motion to suppress was harmless. The prosecutor’s closing remarks were fairly supported by the evidence or reasonable inferences therefrom. The court noted that the district court was required to impose 420 months imprisonment as Hensley’s total punishment. View "United States v. Hensley" on Justia Law

Weckman entered a credit union and placed an apparent make-shift bomb on the counter. The tellers placed approximately $1,600 in his duffle bag, including GPS-enabled fake currency. Weckman fled on a bicycle, which he abandoned minutes later. He entered a vehicle driven by Nelson. Law enforcement found the couple. Weckman exited the vehicle and ran with a duffle bag. In the vehicle, officers discovered the items Weckman had worn in the credit union. An officer found the bag near Weckman; it contained other materials used in the robbery and the stolen money. Officers later searched Weckman’s residence and discovered materials like those identified in the “bomb.: The investigation also revealed incriminating communications.Weckman was charged with aggravated bank robbery, with the lesser-included offense of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. 2113(a) and (d). Nelson was charged with aiding and abetting, 18 U.S.C. 2. They were tried together. Each claimed to have been unknowingly caught up in the other’s scheme. Weckman claimed that these defenses were antagonistic and unsuccessfully moved for severance on the last day of trial. A jury convicted Weckman of the lesser-included offense of bank robbery and acquitted Nelson. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, upholding the denial of the motion for severance. The jury instructions did not impermissibly modify the “intimidation” element of bank robbery from an objective inquiry into a subjective one; a juror’s dismissal for alleged misconduct cleansed the remaining jury of the resulting prejudice against Weckman. View "United States v. Weckman" on Justia Law