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

The Eighth Circuit denied IATSE's petition for review of the Board's decision finding that IATSE violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) through its hiring practices. The court held that the Board's conclusion that it had jurisdiction over SMG Pershing was supported by substantial evidence; the Board's finding that IATSE operated an exclusive hiring hall with respect to Freeman, as well as to SMG Pershing, was supported by substantial evidence; substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that IATSE failed to show that suspending certain members was necessary for effective performance of representing its constituency and the Board's finding that IATSE violated section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the NLRA by suspending these individuals from the referral list; substantial evidence supported the Board's decision that the refusal to refer two employees to the February 2013 Freeman job at the Cornhusker Hotel violated section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the NLRA; and the ALJ's findings of fact, credibility determinations, and ultimate conclusion, which were all adopted by the Board on IATSE's claim that the charge with respect to the referral lists was untimely, were supported by substantial evidence. View "International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendant, a police officer, after the officer shot and killed Marilyn Denise Ambrose-Boyd during a welfare check. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity on the 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims where the officer's use of deadly force was objectively reasonable. In this case, the officer went to Ambrose-Boyd's home after receiving a 911 call report that she was home alone, suicidal, and had a gun. Furthermore, Ambrose-Boyd failed to respond to commands to drop her weapon and raised her gun to another officer's shin level. The court also held that the police chief and the city could not be liable because the officer acted reasonably. View "Rogers v. King" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendant, a police officer, after the officer shot and killed Marilyn Denise Ambrose-Boyd during a welfare check. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity on the 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims where the officer's use of deadly force was objectively reasonable. In this case, the officer went to Ambrose-Boyd's home after receiving a 911 call report that she was home alone, suicidal, and had a gun. Furthermore, Ambrose-Boyd failed to respond to commands to drop her weapon and raised her gun to another officer's shin level. The court also held that the police chief and the city could not be liable because the officer acted reasonably. View "Rogers v. King" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for bribing an Arkansas state official. The court held that the indictment adequately stated the offenses of honest-services and federal-funds bribery; because the indictment stated an offense, defendant's assertion that the government constructively amended the indictment also failed; defendant's objections to the jury instructions for honest-services bribery and federal-funds bribery were rejected; defendant's evidentiary challenges were rejected; and the district court's amount of loss calculation was not clearly erroneous. View "United States v. Suhl" on Justia Law

On remand, the district court concluded that petitioner was procedurally barred from asserting a claim under Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881, 892 (2014), denied relief, and issued a certificate of appealability. The Supreme Court in Burrage held that, if the drug distributed by the defendant is not an independently sufficient cause of the victim’s death or serious bodily injury, a defendant cannot be held liable under the penalty enhancement of 21 U.S.C. 814(b)(1)(C) unless such use is a but-for cause of the death or injury. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that an incorrect jury instruction did not result in prejudice excusing petitioner's procedural default under Burrage. In this case, no reasonable jury would have found that the heroin provided by petitioner was a contributing factor but not the but-for-cause of the victim's fatal overdose. View "Roundtree v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for three counts of commercial sex trafficking in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), 18 U.S.C. 1591(a). The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support each count of conviction; the district court did not err, much less plainly err, in failing to address the issue of duplicity sua sponte; and the jury instructions regarding fraud and coercion did not render the statute void for vagueness as applied to defendant. View "United States v. Paul" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Eric Wong and the Disability Support Alliance (DSA), filed suit against Heartwood, alleging public accommodation violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), and a "bias offense" that entitled them to recover damages and injunctive relief under Minnesota Statutes 611A.79. The Eighth Circuit held that Wong made a sufficient showing of actual injury for Article III standing; Heartwood more than satisfied any applicable burden of production when it submitted with its motion for summary judgment detailed evidence showing that removal of its access barriers was not readily achievable; and thus the district court did not err in granting Heartwood summary judgment dismissing Wong's Title III claim on the merits. The court also held that the district court properly granted summary judgment dismissing Wong's state claim. Because Heartwood did not violate the MHRA, the district court also properly dismissed this claim. View "Disability Support Alliance v. Heartwood Enterprises, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate at a correctional center, filed suit against two officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The jury found for the officers and plaintiff appealed. The court assumed without deciding that plaintiff's offer of proof sufficiently preserved the issue of whether the district court should have allowed cross-examination a corrections guard about a disciplinary report about the guard. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit the cross-examination because the probative value of the evidence was low, and the danger of unfair prejudice and a "mini-trial" was great. The court also held that the district court did not plainly err in admitting evidence of the second incident, which was less probative than the first and similarly risked unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony about plaintiff's aggressive behavior toward cellmates where any error was harmless. View "Walker v. White" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate at a correctional center, filed suit against two officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The jury found for the officers and plaintiff appealed. The court assumed without deciding that plaintiff's offer of proof sufficiently preserved the issue of whether the district court should have allowed cross-examination a corrections guard about a disciplinary report about the guard. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit the cross-examination because the probative value of the evidence was low, and the danger of unfair prejudice and a "mini-trial" was great. The court also held that the district court did not plainly err in admitting evidence of the second incident, which was less probative than the first and similarly risked unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony about plaintiff's aggressive behavior toward cellmates where any error was harmless. View "Walker v. White" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision affirming the bankruptcy court's finding that funds investors transferred to TSF were part of TSF's Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate. The court held that Judge Hastings, the new bankruptcy judge, did not exceed the scope of the BAP's mandate by revisiting Judge Mahoney's, the retired bankruptcy judge, factual findings; Judge Hastings did not abuse her discretion by declining to apply the law-of-the-case doctrine; and Judge Hastings did not clearly err in finding that the investors failed to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that TSF held the funds in trust. View "Allison v. Centris Federal Credit Union" on Justia Law