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

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for American Family in an action brought by plaintiff seeking uninsured motorist coverage from American Family after he was involved in a car accident. The court held that material facts remained unresolved regarding the proximate cause of the accident. In this case, a question of fact exists regarding whether the other driver's entry into the highway, alone, caused the accident or whether the brown car's entry ahead of the other driver caused him to stop, making the accident unavoidable. View "Cottrell v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. The court held that there was no error in applying the concurrent sentence doctrine and the district court did not abuse its discretion in not ordering a complete resentencing. In this case, petitioner's career offender sentence on possession of cocaine with intent to distribute was still valid under Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017).The court also held that appellate counsel did not provide constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to inform this court on direct appeal that petitioner's sentence might be affected by the Supreme Court’s impending decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). The court reasoned that the failure of counsel to anticipate a rule of law that has yet to be articulated did not render counsel's performance professionally unreasonable. View "Smith v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held the ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding petitioner's plea was properly denied, because a reasonable attorney could have determined that the record, including the government's uncontested evidence and petitioner's own colloquy with the magistrate judge, established an adequate factual basis for petitioner's guilty plea to the money laundering charge. The court also held that petitioner's claim that trial counsel improperly coerced the plea was properly rejected. Finally, the issue of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was not included in the certificate of appealability and the court declined to address it. View "Meza-Lopez v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of her minor children and mother, filed suit against the Commissioner, the County, two tribal courts, and related tribal judges, contesting the tribal court's jurisdiction over the children's child custody proceedings.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint, holding that there was no conflict between the Indian Child Welfare Manual's requirement that local social service agencies refer child custody proceedings involving Indian children to tribal social service agencies for proceedings in tribal court, and the Indian Child Welfare Act's recognition of exclusive or presumptive tribal jurisdiction for child custody proceedings involving Indian children. Section 1911(b) of the Act addresses the transfer of proceedings from state court to tribal court and, in this case, there were no state court proceedings. Furthermore, the tribal court's jurisdiction over the children was consistent with Public Law 280. Finally, the court held that plaintiffs have presented no evidence of a due process violation. View "Watso v. Lourey" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and involvement in a drug distribution operation.In regard to the anticipatory warrant claim, the court held that the district court did not err in finding that the warrant was supported by probable cause and in declining to suppress the evidence on the grounds that the warrant was improperly issued, and the district court did not err in failing to suppress the evidence on the ground that the officers lacked probable cause to execute the warrant. The court also held that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of the charges; the district court did not err in admitting the photographs showing defendant associating with coconspirators, and their introduction did not provide a basis for a new trial; and the district court did not clearly err in denying a two-level minor role reduction, because the evidence presented at trial suggested that defendant provided protection to his codefendant and his drug trafficking operation, as well as engaged in drug purchasing and distribution himself. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The absence of a judgment in the state court litigation does not mean that plaintiff lacks Article III standing to bring this suit. Enterprise filed suit against several defendants, alleging a claim under the Missouri Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice based on the ground that there was no case or controversy because Enterprise lacked Article III standing.The Eighth Circuit reversed and held that Enterprise has alleged facts sufficient to demonstrate the elements of standing. In this case, Enterprise has sufficiently alleged a present injury in fact, fairly traceable to defendants, as the transferees of the funds. Therefore, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Enterprise Financial Group Inc. v. Podhorn" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision upholding the IJ's conclusion that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal because of a prior conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude.The court held that petitioner's conviction under Nebraska law for making a false statement to a peace officer is a crime involving moral turpitude that renders a petitioner statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. Therefore, the IJ and BIA correctly determined that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. View "Adame-Hernandez v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of CapDev's motion to cancel the lis pendens. The court held that the district court acted within its discretion in canceling the lis pendens as invalid under Missouri law, because the imprecise description of the property at issue did not connect it to any particular request for equitable relief. View "Enterprise Financial Group Inc. v. Podhorn" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against numerous parties, alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Eighth Circuit revisited its prior holding in this case because of an intervening decision from the Supreme Court. The court held that, even under Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1549 (2016), plaintiffs suffered a concrete injury when they received the two answering machine messages and thus have Article III standing.The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give the jury plaintiffs' preferred instruction on direct liability regarding Defendant Leininger, who hired Defendant ccAdvertising, which made the calls in violation of the TCPA. Finally, the court held that the district court did not err in reducing the award of statutory damages against ccAdvertising, because the larger award would violated the Due Process Clause. View "Golan v. FreeEats.com, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of two special conditions of supervised release at sentencing after defendant pleaded guilty to knowingly failing to register as a sex offender. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a special condition requiring defendant to participate in a sex offender treatment program because it was reasonably related to his history and characteristics and it imposed no greater liberty deprivation than was reasonably necessary. Furthermore, the special condition requiring defendant to have prior approval to be in contact with minors, including his own children, was reasonable in light of his prior sex offense conviction involving his own minor daughter. View "United States v. Puckett" on Justia Law