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

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's holding that 11 U.S.C. 1322(b)(2)'s anti-modification provision did not apply to the Paddock's claim in debtors' manufactured home. Debtors' plan proposed that The Paddock's secured claim in their manufactured home would be bifurcated into secured and unsecured parts.The panel held that the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that the home did not meet Iowa's fixture test and was therefore not real property. In this case, the home sits on piers and blocks, and the bankruptcy court found nothing in the record to show The Paddock's intent to make the manufactured home a fixture. View "The Paddock, LLC v. Bennett" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for two counts of possession of a stolen firearm. The court held that defendant could not establish substantial prejudice and there was no reversible error in the district court's decision to allow an expert witness to testify as to the interstate nexus component of the possession of a stolen firearm charge; there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of possessing the Savage rifle; the district court did not err in declining to group counts which did not involve the same victims, acts, or transactions; and the district court did not err in applying an obstruction of justice enhancement based on a specific finding that defendant knowingly swore falsely. View "United States v. Waln" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts of wire fraud, four counts of mail fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud after cattle producers who contracted for grazing services during the 2012-2014 seasons received neither those services nor refunds of payments made to defendant and his wife's cattle company.The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of conspiracy and two substantive fraud counts but vacated the conviction and special assessments on the other five substantive counts. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Counts 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 related to the 2012 and 2013 grazing season. View "United States v. Hagen" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the City in an action alleging that the City discriminated against plaintiff based on her race when it denied her applications for rezoning to open a beauty salon in a residential neighborhood. The court held that plaintiff's race discrimination claim under the Equal Protection Clause failed because plaintiff failed to produce evidence that the City's decision constituted racial discrimination and the City's interest in preserving the neighborhood's residential character from increased commercialization was supported by the record.In a class-of-one challenge to local zoning decisions, courts are not entitled to review the evidence and reverse the commission merely because a contrary result may be permissible. Instead, the court is authorized only to ascertain whether there has been a transgression upon the property owner's constitutional rights. In this case, the court held that plaintiff's class-of-one discrimination claim failed to meet this standard where she failed to identify how any purported comparators were similarly situated in all material respects. View "Mensie v. City of Little Rock" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, Boeing, for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Plaintiff was an at-will employee with Special Action Program (SAP) clearances and access for his classified work. After his SAP status was terminated, plaintiff refused Boeing's requests to debrief.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Boeing's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and grant of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court held that the district court correctly concluded it had subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's wrongful termination claim where the claim did not challenge the merits of the security clearance decision. The court also held that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's wrongful discharge claim. In this case, plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the manuals he cites did not clearly prohibit him from being debriefed in a SAP facility. View "Dubuque v. The Boeing Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated defendant's assault convictions for inflicting an eye and arm injury on his girlfriend and remanded for a new trial. The court held that, when the district court instructed the jury that it was not limited to the arm injury, the district court constructively amended the indictment to include assault counts based on the eye injury. The court found reversible error, because defendant was prejudiced by the error. View "United States v. Lasley" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff and her three minor children's complaint against Children's Healthcare and a doctor. The action stemmed from the doctor's report to child protective services stating her concerns that plaintiff was harming one of the children. The juvenile court adjudicated that the child was in need of protection or services and ordered that he be placed in foster care.In this action, plaintiff sought relief under Minnesota and federal law, alleging that the doctor's report was false and caused the child to be separated from his family. The court applied Minnesota's law on collateral estoppel and held that the report's veracity was a central issue in the state court proceedings. Because the juvenile court implicitly ruled that the report was credible in its entirety, the court held that plaintiff was precluded from relitigating the issue. View "Peschong v. Children's Healthcare" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his mother were convicted of charges related to their operation of smoke shops that sold "potpourri," a product containing synthetic marijuana that when consumed sometimes resulted in significant adverse health effects. The district court also imposed a money judgment against defendants, AEP Properties, and Cornerstone Plaza, as well as a fine and restitution against defendants.The Eighth Circuit held that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendants, and rejected defendants' numerous contentions of substantive and procedural errors. However, the court reversed the portion of the money judgment jointly and severally pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 853 in the amount of $117,653.57. The court held that Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. at 1632–33, precluded the district court from imposing joint and several liability for coconspirators under section 853. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings as to that issue, but affirmed the sentences and convictions in all other respects. View "United States v. Peithman" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress. The district found that the encounter with law enforcement was not consensual at its inception and did not become consensual at any time before defendant's arrest. The court held, however, that the evidence in the record established that defendant's encounter with law enforcement was consensual and that he consented to the pat-down search. In this case, the pat-down down search was an objectively reasonable measure to protect officer safety and there was no Fourth Amendment violation. View "United States v. Lozano" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for mail fraud, use of fire and aid and abetting the use of fire to commit a felony, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions. In this case, plaintiff's sufficiency arguments amounted to claims that different inferences should have been drawn from the evidence and she supplied various, legitimate facts in support of that claim. The court held, however, that adeptly choosing particular facts from the record and arguing that each, in isolation, did not support the larger inference made by the jury, was not the appropriate standard the court employed on appeal. The court found that the district court painstakingly reviewed the record in light of the elements of the offenses charged and the inferences the jury gleaned from the evidence presented were sufficiently strong to support the guilty verdicts beyond a reasonable doubt. View "United States v. Galloway" on Justia Law