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

After plaintiff was injured after being thrown from his ATV when its right wheel came off, he filed suit against DTG, the manufacturer of the wheel, seeking redress for his injuries. The complaint alleged causes of action for product liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty, failure to warn, and post-sale failure to warn. The first three claims merge by operation of law under Minnesota's single product-liability theory. Plaintiff has abandoned his post-sale failure-to-warn claim by not including any argument on the issue in his brief.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of DTG on the product-liability claim where plaintiff's expert specifically disclaims an opinion as to whether the subject wheel had a design defect that made it unreasonably dangerous. The court also affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of DTG on the failure-to-warn claim where the summary judgment record is completely devoid of evidence that an inadequate warning caused plaintiff's injuries. View "Markel v. Douglas Technologies Group, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The court held that the district court did not err by declining to accept defendant's proposed amendment to the jury instruction defining "possession;" the district court's jury instructions were accurate and defendant was not entitled to a particularly worded instruction as long as the instructions were fair and adequate; and the district court correctly informed the jury that constructive possession requires knowledge of the thing possessed.The court also held that there was no plain error warranting relief based on the indictment or jury instructions; any Rehaif error did not affect defendant's substantial rights warranting relief; and there was sufficient evidence on the knowledge-of-status element to sustain the verdict. View "United States v. Gilmore" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against two police officers, alleging claims of excessive force under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff's claims arose from the officers' response from a caller regarding two highly intoxicated individuals walking around a residential neighborhood knocking on doors.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Officer Smith based on qualified immunity, holding that the undisputed evidence in the record established that it was reasonable for Officer Smith to approach plaintiff as a potential suspect in an assault investigation who posed a threat to officer safety; Officer Smith's arm-bar takedown and later push into the ground did not rise to the level of unreasonable uses of force; and Officer Smith's use of the taser did not violate a clearly established right where a reasonable officer in Smith's position could have perceived plaintiff to be resisting arrest and could have feared for his safety. The court also affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Sergeant Stoler based on qualified immunity, holding that Sergeant Stoler's movement of plaintiff from the back of the squad car after plaintiff was tangled up in his handcuffs, an at least passively resisting suspect, was not gratuitous or unnecessarily violent. View "Kohorst v. Smith" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Arkansas prisoners who are or were on death row for capital murder convictions, filed suit alleging that Arkansas' method of execution violated the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiffs served subpoenas on several state correctional departments, seeking information about the existence of known and available alternatives that would significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain. NDCS objected and asserted that the subpoena violated Nebraska's right to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.In In Re Missouri Dep't of Nat. Res., 105 F.3d 434 (8th Cir. 1997), the Eighth Circuit stated that there is no authority for the position that the Eleventh Amendment shields government entities from discovery in federal court. Therefore, the district court properly determined that Missouri DNR disposes of the sovereign immunity issue. Although Missouri DNR involved a petition for a writ of mandamus, the court found that the breadth of the decision controlling and applicable in this de novo review context as well. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "McGehee v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order declining to impose a reduced sentence under the First Step Act of 2018. The court rejected defendant's suggestion that the district court mistakenly deemed him ineligible because it focused on the wrong drug quantity in determining whether the statutory penalties for his offense were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act. To the contrary, the district court properly rejected defendant's argument that he was entitled to a hearing and then acknowledged that the First Step Act vests discretion in the sentencing court to look at the facts and procedural history of each case when deciding whether to exercise discretion to reduce a sentence. In this case, the district court exercised discretion under the First Step Act, but determined that the existing sentence was appropriate. View "United States v. Haynes" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress statements made when police officers, about to conduct a search to which his roommate had consented, asked defendant "if he lived in the house and which bedroom was his."In this case, neither of the two questions at issue constituted interrogation that required Miranda warnings because a request for routine information necessary for basic identification purposes is not interrogation, even if that information later turns out to be incriminating. Furthermore, the officer's follow up question asking defendant to identify his bedroom, although it presents a closer question, was permissible because the officers needed to determine whether defendant occupied the bedroom and, if so, whether he consented to the search. Therefore, the district court properly denied the motion to suppress. View "United States v. Tapia-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against O.J.'s Cafe under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging that the slopes in the restaurant's parking lot deprived him of full and equal enjoyment of the facility. The restaurant made improvements to the lot and then the district court dismissed plaintiff's claims as moot.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court correctly determined that there was no ongoing injury sufficient to establish Article III standing. In this case, the district court found that any excess slopes in the parking lot were located in areas that would not interfere with plaintiff's access to the restaurant and this finding is supported by the record. View "Hillesheim v. O.J.'s Cafe, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner, who was convicted of one count of first degree murder and two counts of attempted first degree murder. In this case, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a list of basic rules for spectators at trial and required spectators to show photographic identification before being allowed entry into the courtroom. On direct appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected petitioner's argument that the identification requirement violated his Sixth Amendment public right to trial.The court held that petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision -- that no closure occurred because there was no evidence that the requirement was enforced -- is both contrary to and an unreasonable application of Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984), and Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (per curiam). Finally, the court declined to exercise its discretion by expanding the certificate of appealability. View "Taylor v. Dayton" on Justia Law

After Mark Ivey died while in jail, Mark's father (plaintiff) filed suit under Missouri's wrongful death statute against three jail employees under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging claims of deliberate indifference to Mark's serious medical needs. Plaintiff also filed suit against the county on the ground that its failure to train the officers caused Mark's death. The coroner ruled that Mark's cause of death was acute asthma exacerbation. The district court denied summary judgment as to all defendants.The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the officers did not violate clearly established law and are entitled to qualified immunity. The court held that the officers here faced a materially different situation than in McRaven v. Sanders, 577 F.3d 974 (8th Cir. 2009). In this case, Mark was conscious and able to communicate; he told the officers that he did not want medical assistance and raised various complaints to the nurse who checked on him; and, even assuming the officers knew Mark had asthma or was withdrawing from drugs, the record shows Mark affirmatively declined their offers to assist him with those difficulties. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to resolve the county's appeal where the question of whether it is liable for failing to train its officers is not inextricably intertwined with the matter of qualified immunity. View "Ivey v. Audrain County" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of Kinsale's motion to dismiss actions brought by TMI for breach of an indemnity policy. TMI bought a liability insurance policy from Kinsale and the policy excluded a "pollution incident" unless properly reported by TMI. The court held that TMI cannot invoke waiver and estoppel because timely notice "modifies coverage" to include pollution incidents. In this case, TMI learned that an employee suffered injury from a pollution incident, but TMI did not timely report the incident per the plain language of the contract. View "Topp's Mechanical, Inc. v. Kinsale Insurance Co." on Justia Law