Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries
Riggs v. Gibbs
The Eighth Circuit dismissed police officers' interlocutory appeal of the district court's order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by plaintiff, alleging violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as common law rights. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the officers' appeal because there were questions of material fact as to plaintiff's consent, whether the seizure of Syn incense was in plain view, and whether the administrative search exception applied to a warrantless search in 2012. View "Riggs v. Gibbs" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Civil Rights, Constitutional Law
United States v. House
Defendants House and Van Pelt appealed their sentences imposed after pleading guilty to numerous counts related to their participation in a large scale methamphetamine distribution scheme. The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendants' sentences, holding that the district court did not plainly err by conducting a 21 U.S.C. 851(b) inquiry. In this case, defendants failed to show that there was a reasonable probability that their sentences would be different if the district court had engaged in the section 851(b) colloquy. Nor did they show that their prior conviction was invalid or that their rights were otherwise affected.The court also held that House failed to show that any of the three purported Rule 11 errors affected his decision to plead guilty, and thus failed to satisfy the third prong of the plain error standard. Finally, the district court did not err by calculating the drug quantity attributable to Van Pelt, and by applying a leadership role enhancement to his sentence under USSG 3B1.1(c). View "United States v. House" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law
Free the Nipple – Springfield Residents Promoting Equality v. City of Springfield
FTN filed suit against the City, alleging that its indecent exposure ordinance violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the City and held that Ways v. City of Lincoln, 331 F.3d 596 (8th Cir. 2003) was controlling in this case. In Ways, this court upheld an ordinance prohibiting the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering on any part of the areola and nipple against an equal protection challenge. In this case, like in Ways, the City's ordinance was substantially related to its important governmental interests in promoting public decency and proscribing public nudity to protect morals, public order, health, and safety. View "Free the Nipple - Springfield Residents Promoting Equality v. City of Springfield" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Civil Rights, Constitutional Law
Patel v. LM General Insurance Co.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for LM General in an uninsured motorists (UM) coverage dispute. The district court concluded that there was no UM coverage because any liability of the uninsured motorist and his occupants to plaintiff did not arise out of the use of the uninsured motor vehicle.The court held that Missouri law requires UM coverage whenever an uninsured motorist is liable for injury to the insured arising out of the motorist's use of his uninsured auto. In this case, the injuries inflicted on a victim of a drive-by shooting by the occupant of a motor vehicle were not injuries which arise out of the "use" of the motor vehicle because the motor vehicle was merely the "situs" or "locus" of the cause of the victim's injuries and the discharge of the gun was unconnected to the inherent use of the motor vehicle. View "Patel v. LM General Insurance Co." on Justia Law
Posted in:
Insurance Law
Cejvanovic v. Ludwick
Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that five Iowa State Penitentiary (ISP) employees were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's serious medical needs. While plaintiff was serving a life sentence at ISP, he suffered a serious hip injury from an assault by a fellow inmate.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to consider plaintiff's request for substitute appointed counsel. In this case, appointed counsel did not withdraw, and there was no request for substitute counsel. Furthermore, there was no basis in the summary judgment record to suspect that appointment of new counsel would affect the district court's decision. The court also held that there was no evidence in the record that the treating physician or any other medical provider or prison staff provided substandard care and no evidence that defendants ever acted in deliberate disregard of plaintiff's serious medical needs. View "Cejvanovic v. Ludwick" on Justia Law
Khan v. City of Minneapolis
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of judgment on the pleadings to the city in an action brought by landlord after the city revoked his rental-dwelling license. The court held that Ellis v. City of Minneapolis, 860 F.3d 1106, 1109 (8th Cir. 2017), was controlling in this case, and that landlord failed to allege a plausible claim to relief under the Fair Housing Act. Giving landlord's complaint the honest, fair assessment he invites, the court was left with the inescapable conclusion that his claim was indeed about the city's alleged hyper-enforcement of its housing code against for-profit landlords, which was essentially the same allegation that this court considered and rejected in Ellis. View "Khan v. City of Minneapolis" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Landlord - Tenant, Real Estate & Property Law
Davis v. Morris-Walker, LTD
Plaintiff, who uses a wheelchair, filed suit against a restaurant owner and the owner of real property where the restaurant is located, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court dismissed the complaint as moot after the owners made changes to the accessibility of the parking lot.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, because plaintiff lacked standing to sue over alleged deficiencies in the overflow lot. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint to add alleged violations inside the restaurant. The court modified the judgment to dismiss the ADA claims without prejudice. View "Davis v. Morris-Walker, LTD" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Civil Rights, Constitutional Law
Restaurant Recycling, LLC v. Employer Mutual Casualty Co.
Restaurant Recycling filed suit against Employer Mutual, seeking a declaratory judgment that the insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify Restaurant Recycling. Restaurant Recycling was seeking a declaratory judgment and indemnity from an underlying lawsuit alleging that the company delivered defective shipments of recycled fat in which New Fashion Pork used as an ingredient in its swine feed. The court held that the total pollution exclusion in the insurance policy limited coverage in this case because the damage arose from dispersal of lasalocid, which Restaurant Recycling conceded was a pollutant. View "Restaurant Recycling, LLC v. Employer Mutual Casualty Co." on Justia Law
Posted in:
Insurance Law
Jones v. United States
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a successive motion to vacate movant's sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court held that movant's prior convictions for Missouri second-degree assault convictions under Mo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 560.120 were violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act's force clause. A conviction under section 560.120 that involved putting a victim in fear of immediate injury qualifies as a violent felony because it has as an element the threatened use of physical force against the person of another. View "Jones v. United States" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law
Smith v. Arnett
Four groups of prospective intervenors challenged the district court's denials of their motions to intervene in a class action lawsuit by named plaintiff Connie Jean Smith against SEECO, as well as the district court's procedures for opting-out from the class. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that Charter Land's motion to intervene was untimely because it merely repeated arguments already advanced by other attempted intervenors after the class was unsuccessful. The court dismissed the remaining appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the appeals were not filed within 30 days of the district court's order denying intervention. View "Smith v. Arnett" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Civil Procedure, Class Action