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

Plaintiff filed suit against GM after was involved in an accident where he sustained a cervical-spinal cord injury that rendered him a quadriplegic. Plaintiff was in a GMC Savana van and, although he had his seatbelt on during the time of the crash, it did not prevent him from hitting his head on the roof of the van when the vehicle rolled over. The jury found GM negligent for failing to test the van and such negligence caused plaintiff's injuries. The district court then granted GM's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JML) and set aside the verdict. The trial court also conditionally granted a new trial solely as to damages. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment as to the motion for JML and held that there was legally sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find GM liable for negligent design, specifically for failing to conduct adequate testing. The court affirmed the conditional grant of a partial new trial on damages. View "Bavlsik v. General Motors" on Justia Law

After plaintiff filed suit against Air Methods for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, Air Methods removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss based on the pre-emption provision of the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA), 49 U.S.C. 41713(b)(1). The district court relied on Botz v. Omni Air International, 286 F.3d 488 (8thCir. 2002), and dismissed the complaint. The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that the ADA did not expressly preempt plaintiff's state-law wrongful-discharge claims involving post hoc reporting of alleged violations of air-safety regulations. To the extent that the court's opinion in Botz held otherwise, the court overruled it. View "Watson v. Air Methods Corp." on Justia Law

After ten individuals resigned from West Plains to join a start-up freight brokerage operation founded by the former owner of West Plains, West Plains filed suit. The jury found defendants liable for tortious interference with business relationships and breach of the duty of loyalty. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that, based on the nature and intent of their actions, a jury could reasonably find the employee defendants committed unjust acts of interference; the evidence was sufficient to show defendants' actions caused a loss of profits to West Plains, and that the loss continued after the expiration of the temporary injunction; there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find the employee defendants breached their duty of loyalty; given the extent to which each employee defendant was involved in the planning of the start up and the time in which they were so committed, there was adequate support for each forfeiture award; and there was abundant evidence showing defendants entered into an agreement tortiously to interfere with West Plains' business or to breach their duty of loyalty. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' motion for a new trial or altered or amended judgment. View "West Plains, LLC v. Retzlaff Grain Co. Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, shoppers who shopped at SuperValu stores that suffered data breaches, filed putative class actions alleging that hackers gained access to defendants' network because defendants failed to take adequate measures to protect customers' payment card information. The Eighth Circuit held that the complaint has not sufficiently alleged a substantial risk of identity theft, and plaintiffs' allegations of future injury did not support standing in this case. However, the complaint sufficiently alleged that one of the plaintiffs suffered an injury in fact, fairly traceable to defendants' security practices, and likely to be redressed by a favorable judgment. Because that plaintiff had Article III standing, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of his complaint. The court affirmed the dismissal as to the remaining plaintiffs and remanded for further proceedings. View "Alleruzzo v. SuperValu, Inc." on Justia Law

In this second appeal in an SEC enforcement action against Marlon Quan and entities he controlled, including the hedge fund SCAF, three investors in SCAF challenged orders entered by the district court pertaining to the receivership, the entry of judgment against SCAF, and the pro rata distribution of SCAF's assets to investors. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and held that the investors have identified no error in the district court's approval of the First Stipulation, which was within the district court's broad discretionary power; the district court did not abuse its discretion in the approval of the Second Stipulation; there was no basis to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in applying a pro rata distribution to all investors; and the investors have waived their arguments regarding legal fees and expenses. View "SEC v. Topwater Exclusive Fund III" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 18 month sentence after revocation of supervised release. The court held that the district court did not commit plain procedural error where the district court was aware of its obligations to consider the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and did actually consider some of those factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense, defendant's history and characteristics, and the advisory Guidelines range. The court also held that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court did not fail to consider relevant factors that should have received significant weight. View "United States v. McGhee" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition, holding that his prior Wisconsin conviction for battery of a law enforcement officer constituted a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). In this case, the Wisconsin conviction necessarily involved the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another. View "Jones v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss his conviction of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. The court agreed with the Ninth Circuit that the phrase "right to counsel" in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)(B)(i)(I) refers to the right to counsel "as it existed in the predicate misdemeanor proceeding." In this case, defendant presented no evidence that his counsel at the tribal-court proceeding was not admitted to practice as lay counsel in the tribal court. Because lay counsel are admitted to practice before the tribal court, defendant was represented by counsel in the tribal-court proceeding within the meaning of section 921(a)(33)(B), and his conviction there thus constituted a valid predicate offense under section 922(g)(9). The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motions for a mistrial and for a new trial based on Brady v. Maryland, because information at issue was not exculpatory and, even if it was, defendant suffered no prejudice. View "United States v. Long" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's award of damages to plaintiff for injuries that she sustained in a vehicle-related accident. The court held that the district court improperly applied a heightened duty to the sober designated driver for a group of intoxicated passengers. In this case, the findings of fact were insufficient to support apportioning greater fault to the driver based on her duty to exercise reasonable care in driving the vehicle. Accordingly, the court remanded for new findings and conclusions on the allocation of fault. View "Hiltner v. Owners Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the City and SMG on plaintiff's claim that defendants violated his First Amendment free-speech rights. In this case, plaintiff was ticketed and arrested for trespassing after he distributed leaflets in the plaza area of the Pinnacle Bank Arena, which activity was prohibited by the Arena's Exterior Access and Use Policy. The court held that, while the physical characteristics of the Plaza Area may be suggestive of a conclusion that it was a public forum, the use for which the Plaza Area was designed does not suggest that it should be considered a traditional public forum. After considering relevant factors such as the Plaza Area's physical characteristics; its use, function, and purpose; and the City's intent in constructing the space, the court agreed with the district court that the Plaza Area was a nonpublic forum. The court also held that the district court did not err in concluding that the Policy was reasonable and thus constitutional as not unduly restrictive of plaintiff's First Amendment rights to engage in expressive activity in a nonpublic forum. View "Ball v. City of Lincoln" on Justia Law