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

The Libertarian Party filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the Arkansas Secretary of State, claiming that the ballot access statutory scheme violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. During the Secretary's appeal of the district court's judgment, the Arkansas General Assembly amended its statute to allow new political parties to hold their nominating convention and submit their certificates of nomination at 12:00 p.m. on the day of the major parties' primary election. The Fifth Circuit held that the Libertarian Party's claim for declaratory relief has been rendered moot. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint. The court affirmed the award of costs and attorney's fees. View "Libertarian Party of Arkansas v. Martin" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order of restitution in a case where defendant was convicted of distributing a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. The court held that the district court's estimate of future psychological damages, based on the testimony of the victim's mother and the documented expenses already incurred, where not clearly erroneous. The court also held that the evidence before the district court provided a basis to conclude that some of the victim's losses were uniquely caused by defendant distributing the video of her assault. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to award restitution and it did not clearly err in assessing the amount of restitution awarded. View "United States v. Hoskins" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction an action alleging that a fee paid to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the transitional reinsurance program in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), 42 U.S.C. 18061(b)(1)(A), did not apply to self-insured, self-administered plans. The Fund asked the district court to declare that it was not required to submit the fee and was entitled to reimbursement of its mistaken payment to the Department. The court affirmed the district court's holding that the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 702, 704, did not waive sovereign immunity and, even without sovereign immunity, the Tucker Act would vest exclusive jurisdiction over this lawsuit in the United States Court of Federal Claims. View "Batsche v. Price" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity in an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that UMKC's decision not to renew plaintiff's contract was in retaliation of his free speech rights as a public employee. The court held that plaintiff's speech regarding the school's preferential treatment of student athletes was unprotected speech done pursuant to his duties as a lecturer. Plaintiff failed to show, using the particularized inquiry required, that his right to make this speech in these circumstances was clearly established. In this case, defendants could reasonably conclude that plaintiff spoke solely as an aggrieved lecturer in asking the Chancellor to investigate grading policies for student athletes. View "Lyons v. Vaught" on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's order remanding an adversary proceeding brought against debtor by the Law Firm. The panel held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by committing a clear error of judgment in weighing the listed criteria. In this case, the bankruptcy court's analysis demonstrated its exercising jurisdiction would not resolve any bankruptcy issue or serve any bankruptcy purpose that was not at least equally well-served by remanding the matter to the state court. The court rejected debtor's arguments to the contrary and affirmed. View "Zahn Law Firm, P.A. v. Baker" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence of 75 months in prison after she pleaded guilty to wire fraud, use of unauthorized access devices, and aggravated identity theft. The court held that the presentencing report's statement that the scheme involved more than 50 participants was not material to any enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(b), and any error in overruling defendant's objection was harmless. The court also held that the district court properly overruled defendant's objections to the PSR; the district court did not err by finding that she was a manager or supervisor of a criminal activity involving five or more participants where defendant admitted the scheme involved more than 15 participants. Finally, the district court did not err by denying a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under USSG 3E1.1(a). View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Allstate after the insurance company denied their homeowner's insurance claim. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of Allstate's motion for judgment as a matter of law. In regard to the breach of contract claim, the court held that plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of the home's value and the personal property's value before or after the fire. Furthermore, a bankruptcy filing was insufficient to establish value. In this case, plaintiffs could have submitted an estimate of the personal property's value immediately before the fire, but they did not. Values on their proof-of-loss list were estimates of original purchase prices and it did not account for deterioration, obsolescence, or other depreciation as required by the policy and under Missouri law. Because plaintiff's vexatious refusal claim was derivative of their breach of contract claim, the court affirmed as to that claim. View "Aziz v. Allstate Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 130 month sentence after he pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of child pornography. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by not considering the sentences of other similarly situated defendants. The court explained that, although sentencing-disparity arguments were properly raised to the district court, the court declined to impose a procedural requirement that a district court must compare and contrast the defendant under consideration with a similar offender who has been sentenced by another federal judge. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. View "United States v. McElderry" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the revocation of defendant's supervised release and sentence of 24 months in prison. The court held that the sentence was substantively reasonable, the district court properly imposed the sentence based on multiple violations and the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, and did not procedurally err in varying upwards. View "United States v. Durr" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a hearing to determine whether he should be discharged from the Federal Medical Center at Rochester (FMCR). The court held that ample evidence supported the district court's finding that defendant required ongoing commitment at FMCR under 18 U.S.C. 4245(d) for treatment of his schizophrenia. View "United States v. Wedington" on Justia Law