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

Farmers brought an interlocutory appeal of the district court's rulings interpreting an arbitration agreement in an employment contract. The Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal based on lack of jurisdiction, holding that when a district court enters a stay instead of a dismissal, that order is not appealable. In this case, the district court's decision stayed the case pending arbitration, but did not dismiss the claims. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. 16(a)(1)(B) absent an order denying arbitration outright, and the court declined to apply the collateral order doctrine to find jurisdiction in this case. View "Webb v. Farmers of North America, Inc." on Justia Law

The Board sought enforcement of it its order finding that Anderson violated section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), by failing to make contractually mandated contributions to the CLT&E Funds and the union. The Eighth Circuit granted the Board's application for enforcement of its order and denied Anderson's petition for review. The court held that the union's 2015 unfair labor practice charge was timely.The court also held that the record did not support Anderson's argument that the deposition testimony at issue served as the basis for the charge. Rather, the Board found that even without relying on the depositions, the record established that Anderson violated section 8(a)(5) by withdrawing recognition from the union and by repudiating the terms of the 2014-2018 Heavy Highway Agreement. Finally, the court rejected Anderson's argument that the Board erred in failing to find that the union induced its failure to pay in May 2015. View "NLRB v. Anderson Excavating" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana, possession of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting drug trafficking testimony from a police officer based on the specialist's experience and training; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the second and third counts; the district court did not err by sentencing defendant as an armed career criminal based on his three prior convictions for selling cocaine; the sale of a controlled substance in violation of a Missouri statute is a controlled substance violation under the Armed Career Criminal Act; and defendant's sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment. View "United States v. McDaniel" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being an accessory to a second degree murder. The court declined to consider defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal where the issue was never raised before the district court and the record was not fully developed; there was no basis for the court to conclude that trial counsel's ineffectiveness was readily apparent or obviously deficient; and defendant failed to show a plain miscarriage of justice.The court also held that the district court did not commit procedural error where the district court's explanation of the sentence was sufficient. Furthermore, any procedural error by imposing an upward departure was harmless because the district court justified the sentence by referencing both the grounds and the relevant section 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion and did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. View "United States v. Quiver" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit agreed with American Family that the district court erred in holding that the matching exclusion did not apply to the insureds' policy. Reviewing the district court's interpretation of the insurance policy de novo and applying Minnesota law, the court held that even if it were to discount the matching exclusion's explicit statement that it modifies the Form, as the district court did, other circumstances unambiguously showed that the Minnesota Endorsement, and thus the matching exclusion, applied to the insureds' policy. Therefore, the district court erred in reading the matching exclusion in the policy and, after applying the explicit and unambiguous exclusion, American Family was not obligated to pay for damages attributable to matching difficulties. View "Noonan v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possession of more than 500 grams of methamphetamine. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant where a reasonable jury could conclude, based on the large amount of easily discoverable meth in defendant's truck, that he knew it was sitting with his cargo; the district court did not err by denying the motion to suppress where the officers' use of a dog sniff was reasonable both because defendant consented to a search and because the extension of the stop was de minimis in light of his consent; and the district court did not err in rejecting defendant's proposed mere presence instruction because the instructions it gave adequately covered his theory of defense. View "United States v. Leon" on Justia Law

After Jeffrey Odom died in a motor vehicle accident driving a pick-up truck owned by his employer and insured by Berkley, Odom's widow filed a claim with Berkley for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits. Berkeley then filed a diversity action seeking a declaratory judgment of no UIM coverage and plaintiff counter-claimed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of Berkley's motion for summary judgment and held that the other driver's vehicle was not an "underinsured motor vehicle" as defined in Berkley's policy and in the auto insurance provisions of the North Dakota Century Code. View "Berkley Regional Insurance Co. v. Bernick-Odom" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon and conspiracy to possess a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court held that the district court did not err in applying a cross-reference under USSG 2K2.1(c)(1)(B) to USSG 2A1.1, the first degree murder guideline, where defendant gave a firearm to an acquaintance with the understanding that he would use the gun in connection with a drug trafficking activity and to retaliate against a woman, eventually killing her. The court also held that the district court did not plainly err by declining to declare sua sponte that the government breached the agreement. View "United States v. Edger" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of defendant's supervised release and sentence of 10 months in prison after he admitted to violating conditions of his supervised release. The court held that the district court had a legitimate concern for managing the risk of recidivism and it was proper for the district court to consider defendant's own reservations about immediate release to the community when fashioning the revocation sentence. View "United States v. Newson" on Justia Law

This consolidated appeal stemmed from the trusts' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining the use of Phyllis Schafly's intellectual property. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1) and held that the trusts would not be entitled to the traditional presumption of irreparable harm in trademark cases because they did not promptly seek preliminary injunctive relief concerning the trademark infringement, regardless of whether the presumption survived recent Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the movant's burden to show that irreparable injury was likely in the absence of an injunction. The court dismissed the appeal of the order staying litigation for lack of appellate jurisdiction, because the order was temporary and did not effectively end the litigation. View "Phyllis Schlafly Revocable Trust v. Cori" on Justia Law