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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims challenging the city's ordinance based on lack of standing. The challenged ordinance made it unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport or sell within the City of Sioux City, Iowa, any pit bull. In this case, plaintiff admitted that she does not currently own a dog because she and her fiance work full time and do not have the time to own a dog, but she intended to adopt a dog in the near future.The court held that, to the extent plaintiff sought prospective relief against future conduct, she failed to show that she owns a dog and does not live in the city. Furthermore, her intention to adopt a dog in the near future was uncertain and insufficient to confer standing. The court also held that plaintiff's past injuries did not grant her standing because she failed to demonstrate how her proposed relief redressed them. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to hold an evidentiary hearing prior to its sua sponte dismissal of plaintiff's claim. View "Myers v. Sioux City" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in a bag defendant had been carrying. Defendant had pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon. The court held that, although defendant was in custody at the time, those in custody can still voluntarily consent to a search and, in this case, defendant had been advised of his constitutional rights and his statements were not the result of officers questioning him or asking for consent. Rather, defendant was responding to the resident and did so less than thirty minutes after he had been taken into custody and less than fifteen minutes after he had been read his Miranda rights. Furthermore, even if defendant did not consent to the search, the evidence would have been admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. View "United States v. Sallis" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, alleging violations of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's MHRA claims on alternative grounds. The court held that, assuming that the company took adverse action against plaintiff during a meeting when the CEO raised an "exit strategy," plaintiff failed to show that the action was taken because of protected opposition to an unlawful employment practice under the MHRA. Furthermore, the decision to arrange an exit strategy was not motivated by plaintiff's marital status. View "Harrell v. Handi Medical Supply, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). The court held that petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the residual clause led the sentencing court to apply a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on a prior aggravated criminal sexual abuse conviction, and the classification was not harmless because a conviction thereunder did not constitute a violent felony under current law. The court also held that the district court erred in determining that petitioner's drug conviction qualified as a serious drug offense. Therefore, the court held that petitioner no longer had three prior felony convictions that qualified as predicate offenses. Because petitioner has already served the maximum time authorized by statute, the district court shall direct that he be released from custody immediately. View "Lofton v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (count 5) and possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine (count 7). The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for acquittal and held that a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant possessed firearms in furtherance of a drug crime and therefore the evidence was sufficient to convict of count 5. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of count 7 where a reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute it. View "United States v. Druger" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Iowa Parts in a trademark secrets and intellectual property action brought by CMI. The court held that CMI could not establish its burden of proving that the discovery rule saves its statutory cause of action because it was on inquiry notice that Iowa Parts was making its component parts, possibly with its engineering documents and other trade secrets, starting in 2002 and continuing thereafter. The court also held that CMI was on notice of a possible problem as early as 2002 on the conversion claim. Finally, the district court properly granted summary judgment on the unjust enrichment claim where an equitable claim could not provide alternative relief. View "CMI Roadbuilding, Inc. v. Iowa Parts, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment holding that defendant was liable for amounts owed in a consent judgment stemming from loan defaults. Defendant had signed a general guaranty for a company that he thought he owned in part with his trusted friend and financial advisor. His friend purportedly failed to mention that the guaranty would make defendant liable for millions of dollars of debt from loans that his friend had obtained and was unable to pay.The court held that the FDIC's creation of CADC and its sale of Premier Bank's assets thereto fell within its broad power; there was no clear error in finding that defendant's agent delivered the guaranty with his implied actual authority because defendant signed the guaranty, understood its contents, and gave express authority to conduct business; and there was no error in finding that the bank did not fail in its duty to ensure that the agent acted with implied actual authority and in rejecting defendant's fraud in the factum defense. View "Radiance Capital Receivables Eighteen, LLC v. Concannon" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography involving a prepubescent minor. The government agreed that defendant's criminal-history score was miscalculated because the applicable Minnesota statutes of conviction, Minn. Stat. 609.342-.343, apply to victims under the age of 13, while the federal comparator statute, 18 U.S.C. 2241(c), in relevant part, applies to victims under the age of 12. However, the government argued that resentencing was unwarranted.The court held, however, that defendant established that the error in this case was plain and that the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings such that the court must exercise its discretion to remedy the error. In this case, without finality from proceedings involving defendant's concurrent state sentence, it was reasonably likely that the error in calculating defendant's federal sentence could result in him spending more time in prison. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Barthman" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner based on double jeopardy grounds. Before petitioner was tried and convicted in state court, a jury had been impaneled in the prosecution of the same charge against him but the state trial court declared a mistrial before the trial actually began because the prosecutor sustained an injury.The court held that the Minnesota Court of Appeals' determination that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a mistrial based on manifest necessity was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. In this case, the state court did not violate petitioner's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declaring that manifest necessity justified the mistrial grant. View "Fenstermaker v. Halvorson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's order denying petitioner's motion to administratively close or remand to the IJ, and denying petitioner's motion to reopen and reconsider the first denial. The court held that the BIA's substantial discussion of the statutory and regulatory bases for using a substitute IJ were sufficient.The court held that reopening a case should not be granted unless the alien has met the heavy burden of showing that the new evidence presented would likely change the result in the case. The court held that the BIA applied the correct legal standard in reviewing petitioner's request to submit additional hardship evidence. The court also held that the BIA did not err in denying petitioner's motion to remand in an April order. However, the court remanded for clarification of the BIA's rationale for denying the motion to open in the December order. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Caballero-Martinez v. Barr" on Justia Law