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

After plaintiff was appointed as a presidential elector during the 2016 presidential election, he was deemed to have vacated his position under Minnesota's Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act, Minn. Stat. 208.40-208.48, when he attempted to vote for candidates other than those to whom he was pledged. Plaintiff then filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the Minnesota statute and to enjoin Minnesota officials from counting the vote of the substitute elector.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action as moot where Congress had counted the Minnesota elector votes, and denied plaintiff's motion to supplement the record and to remand for further proceedings on mootness. The court held that plaintiff failed to establish that his action fell within the mootness exception for cases that were capable of repetition yet evading review because plaintiff failed to file his action sooner. View "Abdurrahman v. Dayton" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Trimark in an action filed by plaintiff, alleging that she was terminated from her job as an executive housekeeper because of her age, in retaliation against her, because she took protected leave, and because she opposed Millennium's discriminatory practices. The court held that plaintiff failed to provide direct evidence that she was retaliated against because of her deposition testimony. Under the McDonnell-Douglas framework, even assuming plaintiff could establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Millennium had clearly shown a legitimate non-discriminatory or retaliatory reason for firing her. In this case, Millennium's internal investigation credibly exposed that plaintiff regularly altered employee hours without using a company-sanctioned form. The court also held that plaintiff failed to show a specific link between any age discrimination and her termination sufficient to support the inference that the discrimination was the cause of her termination. Finally, plaintiff failed to provide any direct evidence that she was fired because she took protected leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. View "Naguib v. Trimark Hotel Corp." on Justia Law

After debtor filed for bankruptcy, she sought to exempt a property tax refund of $1,500, asserting that she could exempt the refund as government assistance based on need under Minnesota law. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy appellate panel's decision sustaining the trustee's objection to the amended exemption. The court held that the property tax refund did not fit within the Minnesota Legislature's definition of government assistance based on need and was therefore not exempt. View "Hanson v. Seaver" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs, holding that St. Paul Insurance's policy expressly precluded indemnification of intentional criminal acts and that David Kofoed's act of evidence tampering did not fall within the malicious prosecution exception. Kofoed was criminally convicted for evidence tampering while investigating two murders and eventually charging plaintiffs with the murders.The court held that St. Paul's policy coverage was not illusory where it excluded coverage for acts with specific intent, but did not cover general intent acts; the policy did not provide some exceptions to the exclusions to cover certain intentional acts such as malicious prosecution; and Kofoed's evidence-tampering crime was analogous to civil malicious prosecution. Because plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead the malicious prosecution cause of action in their complaints, the district court's entry of default judgment against Kofoed did not include malicious prosecution. Because Kofoed's judgment did not include malicious prosecution, plaintiffs failed in their burden to show that an exception to the insurance exclusion applied. Therefore, St. Paul had no duty to indemnify Kofoed. View "Sampson v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Holiday Stationstores, alleging claims for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) based on the company's failure to provide a compliant handicap-accessible parking space at one of its stores. The district court granted Holiday's motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff's claims.The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiff's motion to strike the affidavit of Holiday's Vice President of Engineering. The court vacated the district court's judgment dismissing the ADA claim and held that, although the ADA claim was moot after Holiday permanently flattened the access aisle, it was wrong to dismiss the claim because the proper procedure was to remand the claim to state court. Furthermore, the portion of the judgment dismissing plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief under the Minnesota Human Rights Act must also be vacated and remanded to state court. Finally, the court held that plaintiff's claim for damages under the MHRA was not moot and the district court should, on remand, determine whether it wished to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim. View "Hillesheim v. Holiday Stationstores, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for three counts of abusive sexual contact with A.W., a minor and enrolled member of the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying Rule of Evidence 412 and refusing to admit testimony that the victim had been sexually assaulted by other men after the incidents involving defendant; defendant's right to present his defense was not unduly, nor unconstitutionally, hindered by his inability to cross-examine the witness and the interviewers about later-occurring sexual abuse by other adults; and the district court properly excluded the evidence under Rule 403. View "United States v. Hawkghost" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his wife filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the City and members of the police department who investigated a student's allegation that plaintiff sexually assaulted her. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants, holding that the district court correctly identified the governing Rule 56(d) principles, so there was no error of law amounting to an abuse of discretion. In this case, plaintiff presented no evidence tending to refute or contradict defendants' strong evidence from the state court proceedings that their conduct in investigating the student's serious allegation of sexual misconduct, however questionable or incomplete, was not conscious-shocking behavior as a matter of law. The court held that officers were entitled to summary judgment where the investigation did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights. Consequently, the district court dismissed claims for supervisory liability against the police chief and the city. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims for malicious prosecution, negligent hiring and supervision and loss of consortium affirmed. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' Rule 56(d) request to defer its ruling until additional discovery was completed and in granting summary judgment dismissing all claims. View "Johnson v. Moody" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order permanently enjoining enforcement of a recently enacted provision of the Missouri Constitution, Missouri Constitution Article VIII, Section 23.3(12), which prohibits a political action committee from receiving contributions from other political action committees. The court held that the prohibition unconstitutionally infringed on a political action committee's First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. The court held that the amendment violated the First Amendment as applied to political action committees (PACs) that donate only to candidates and to PACs that both donate to candidates and make independent expenditures, and the state did not have a sufficiently important interest in preventing contributions to a PAC that makes only independent expenditures. View "Free and Fair Election Fund v. Missouri Ethics Commission" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction enjoining provisions of Missouri Revised Statute section 197.200 (2007), which required a doctor who performs abortions at an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) to have surgical privileges at a licensed hospital in the community, and regulations issued by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, which required a number of physical design and layout provisions for facilities performing abortions.The court held that a substantive due process challenge to the Physical Plant Regulations—governed by the "cost-benefit analysis" required by the undue burden standard—was not currently fit for judicial resolution given the paucity of evidence on how DHSS will grant waivers. Because the court lacked sufficient information to make a constitutional determination on the Physical Plant Regulations, the court remanded to the district court for further consideration. The court also held that the district court failed to apply the plain language of Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292, as revised (June 27, 2016), when it enjoined the Hospital Relationship Requirement. Therefore, the court remanded for the district court, at the very least, to weigh the state's asserted benefits against the burdens associated with the requirement. View "Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains v. Hawley" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order limiting the scope of plaintiff's general causation phase discovery in this products liability suit alleging that plaintiff's husband's use of Enbrel caused his myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) which resulted in his death. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the scope of plaintiff's general causation discovery; the district court's basis for weighing proportionality was based on common sense and the search conducted by plaintiff's counsel during the discovery hearing; the district court did not rely on misrepresented facts by Amgen in issuing its discovery orders; any error in failing to provide plaintiff an opportunity to cross-examine Amgen's expert was harmless; the district court was under no obligation to order Amgen to provide plaintiff with materials the FDA requests—but does not require—from pharmaceutical companies when the agency evaluates safety risks; and plaintiff's assertion that the district court's order limiting the scope of her discovery prejudiced her case was rejected.The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions under Rule 11 and by imposing sanctions under 28 U.S.C. 1927. Finally, the district court properly exercised its inherent power to sanction plaintiff's counsel, and here was no abuse of discretion View "Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc." on Justia Law