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

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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court did not commit impermissible double counting by calculating the advisory guideline range by applying a two-level increase under USSG 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) for possessing a stolen firearm and USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an 84 month term of imprisonment. View "United States v. Canamore" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Continental in a personal injury action. In this case, plaintiff was an employee of Great Western, and Continental had hired Great Western as an independent contractor to gauge wastewater levels in holding tanks at its well sites in North Dakota.The court held that the master service contract between Continental and Great Western did not provide that Continental would supervise, inspect, or direct Great Western's work, and plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Continental directly supervised his work or instructed him on the use of the well site equipment. Therefore, because Continental did not control plaintiff's work nor instruct him on the use of the equipment, it was not liable for negligence because it did not owe plaintiff a duty. The court also held that the district court did not err in finding that Continental's failure to answer plaintiff's amended complaint, which was filed after the parties briefed summary judgment, did not constitute an admission. Finally, to the extent plaintiff made a premises liability argument on appeal, the court would not consider the claim because it was not raised before the district court. View "Vandewarker v. Continental Resources, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants on his claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The court held that plaintiff failed to administratively exhaust some claims, and he failed to show a violation of his rights under RLUIPA and the First Amendment on the claims he exhausted. The court also held that the district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's retaliation claims against five defendants because plaintiff did not allege any facts connecting those defendants to the challenged actions.However, the court held that a genuine issue of material fact remained as to plaintiff's retaliation claims against seven other defendants where plaintiff presented evidence that these specific defendants placed him in administrative segregation and prevented him from providing his attorney with legal documents shortly after he filed a previous lawsuit against prison officials and they knew of the lawsuit. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding for further proceedings. View "Bitzan v. Bartruff" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm after a shooting at a fraternity party. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to establish possession, and the district court did not err in excluding expert testimony regarding eyewitness identification. View "United States v. Nickelous" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order finding that Prudential did not abuse its discretion when it terminated plaintiff's long term disability benefits. The court held that, although plaintiff presented some evidence that he was disabled, Prudential's decision to deny benefits was supported by substantial evidence. In this case, Prudential had evidence that plaintiff was deliberately exaggerating his symptoms, making it impossible to determine whether he had cognitive deficiencies that rendered him disabled. View "Johnston v. Prudential Insurance Co." on Justia Law

After James Wurster suffered fatal burns when a gas can manufactured by TPG exploded as he was burning garbage on this farm, his wife filed suit against TPG. The jury rendered a take-nothing verdict under Iowa's comparative fault scheme and found TPG forty-five percent at fault for Mr. Wurster's death due to its failure to provide adequate warnings on the gas can and apportioning the balance of the fault to Mr. Wurster.The Eighth Circuit affirmed and held that plaintiff's design defect claim was sufficiently presented to the jury; the district court did not err by instructing the jury on reasonable alternative design; and there was no prejudicial error in giving the assumption of risk instruction. The court also held that the district court did not err by granting judgment as a matter of law to TPG on the post-sale failure to warn claim because plaintiff presented insufficient evidence to show TPG had a post-sale duty to warn consumers of the danger posed by its W520 gas cans. View "Wurster v. The Plastics Group" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Housing Authority and plaintiff's supervisor in an action alleging various discrimination, retaliation, and constitutional claims. Plaintiff resigned from his job after he failed a drug test and his employer sought documentation of the prescription medications plaintiff was using, as well as a clearance letter from plaintiff's healthcare professionals addressing the issue.The court held that, by not including in his EEOC charge the adverse acts which he maintained forced him to resign, plaintiff failed to administratively exhaust his constructive discharge allegation; plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination; plaintiff failed to show that he suffered an adverse employment action because he was suspended before his employer had any reason to suspect that he might be disabled; and plaintiff failed to show that he possessed a property interest in his employment under Arkansas law in order to prevail on his procedural due process claim. View "Voss v. Housing Authority of the City of Magnolia" on Justia Law