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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the Director's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims in an action alleging that the Director's procedures for inviting citizens to witness executions violated plaintiff's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff, an investigative journalist who formerly reported for St. Louis Public Radio and now works as a death penalty reporter for BuzzFeed News, wrote several articles criticizing Missouri's execution practices and the Director never responded to his requests to witness any executions.The court held that plaintiff had Article III standing where he has suffered an injury in fact because the Director has excluded him and all applicants sharing his particular viewpoint from viewing the executions. Furthermore, plaintiff's claim was not moot as there was a continuing controversy as to the standing policies and customs of the Department of Corrections. The court also held that Ex part Young permitted plaintiff's suit challenging the constitutionality of the Director's implementation, and thus the action may proceed in federal court. View "McDaniel v. Precythe" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of an action alleging that Myron's violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court held that amendment of the complaint would not have been futile where plaintiff's allegations raised a right to relief from the speculative level and was not just labels and conclusions. The court found that the relevant provisions noted that an obstruction of an accessible route violates the readily accessible standard unless the obstruction was isolated or temporary, like those due to maintenance or repairs, restocking shelves, or moving items to a storage room. Furthermore, an obstruction was not isolated or temporary unless it was promptly removed. In this case, plaintiff proposed to amend the complaint to allege that he visited Myron's approximately 15 times over the last four years and that the aisles were obstructed by displays and excess merchandise each of the times he visited. View "Hillesheim v. Myron's Cards and Gifts, Inc." on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgement revoking debtor's discharge. The panel held that the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that debtor knowingly and fraudulently failed to surrender his income tax refunds to the trustee. In this case, the bankruptcy court's view that the evidence demonstrated that debtor acted knowingly and fraudulently was permissible, even assuming debtor's view was also permissible. The panel held that debtor's remaining arguments did not persuade it otherwise. View "Velde v. Thiel" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed a post-judgment order concluding that the district court retained jurisdiction to enforce the stipulated class action settlement agreement MDHS entered into with plaintiffs. Determining that it had jurisdiction over the appeal based on the collateral order doctrine, the court held that the district court did not err in determining that, under Minnesota contract law, the jurisdictional provision of the settlement agreement was ambiguous on its face. The court further held that the extrinsic evidence showed that the provision permitted the district court to extend its jurisdiction as it deemed just and equitable. View "Jensen v. Minnesota Department of Human Services" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), alleging that the employer violated USERRA by failing to promptly reemploy her and the violation was willful. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting relief to plaintiff under USERRA, holding that the district court did not clearly err by finding that the employer acted willfully and plaintiff was entitled to liquidated damages. View "Mace v. Willis" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for one count of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, one count of interstate transportation of an individual to engage in prostitution, one count of use of facilities in interstate commerce with intent to aid an enterprise involving prostitution, and one count of use of facilities in interstate commerce with intent to distribute proceeds from an enterprise involving prostitution.The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to exclude evidence where the warrant was not so obviously deficient that any reasonable officer would have known that it was constitutionally fatal and the application of the exclusionary rule would not result in appreciable deterrence of police misconduct; the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting a detective's expert testimony; there was no impropriety in the district court's statements to the jurors and the court rejected defendant's contention that the district court had declared a mistrial and then improperly allowed the jury to continue deliberations; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial; and defendant's challenges to his sentence were rejected. View "United States v. Szczerba" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's application for adjustment of status under the Violence Against Women Act. The court held that substantial evidence supported the IJ's finding that petitioner, a Canadian citizen, knew she was ineligible to vote in the 2004 election and did so anyway. Furthermore, petitioner failed to show clearly and beyond doubt that she was entitled to an entrapment-by-estoppel defense. View "Chernosky v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to three officers based on qualified immunity on plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim, alleging the violation of his constitutional rights under the First and Fourth Amendments. The court held that the officers were justified in their efforts to investigate plaintiff's Facebook post asking in response to a post advocating against gun control measures: "Which one do I need to shoot up a kindergarten?" The court held that no exigent circumstances prevented the officers from gathering additional information before making the arrest. Here, a minimal further investigation would have revealed that plaintiff's post was not a true threat. Therefore, it was beyond debate that had the officers engaged in further investigation, the only reasonable conclusion was that plaintiff had not violated the law for disturbing the peace. View "Ross v. City of Jackson" on Justia Law

Objectors challenged the district court's order granting final approval of a class action settlement agreement between Remington and a class of members that alleged Remington rifles were susceptible to unintentional firing without a trigger pull. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the notice plan was adequate and satisfied the methods and mechanisms for disseminating notice set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. In this case, the notice of the settlement was adequate as the supplemental notice plan included a social media campaign, radio advertising, email notices, direct mailings and vendor posters. Furthermore, the low claim submission rate, while not ideal, was not necessarily indicative of a deficient notice plan. Finally, the proposed settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate where the record made plain that it followed meaningful discovery and investigation by class counsel and arm's length negotiations. View "Pollard v. Frost" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury. The court held that any error the prosecutor committed by discussing his views on shoes as dangerous weapons was not plain; there was sufficient evidence to find that the shoes defendant and her daughter wore were dangerous weapons; defendant did not raise her claim that two crimes of conviction were multiplicitous before trial and the claim was untimely; there was no plain error in the district court's jury instruction on aiding and abetting and the evidence was sufficient to show that she actually aided and abetted her daughter; and defendant abandoned the intoxication defense and withdrew the corresponding jury instruction. View "United States v. Bravebull" on Justia Law