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

Petitioners sought review of the FCC's order governing the rates that utility companies may charge telecommunications providers for attaching their networks to utility-owned poles. The Eighth Circuit denied the petition, holding that the term "cost" in the Pole Attachments Act, 47 U.S.C. 224, was ambiguous and the same "cost" definition need not be used to determine the upper bound for cable rates under section 224(d) and the rate for telecommunications providers under section 224(e). Therefore, the statute permits, but did not require, the Cable Rate and the Telecom Rate to diverge. The court rejected petitioners' argument that the FCC's interpretation of the statute rendered section 224(e) superfluous; concluded that the order constituted a reasonable interpretation of the ambiguity in section 224(e); and denied the petition for review. View "Ameren Corp. v. FCC" on Justia Law

After the City revoked his rental licenses, plaintiff filed suit alleging that the City violated 42 U.S.C. 1983 by subjecting plaintiff to the deprivation of his rights, privileges, or immunities under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the City's motion for summary judgment on the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. The court held that plaintiff had not demonstrated, as a matter of law, that the City violated his substantive-due-process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court also held that the City's conduct was not arbitrary, oppressive, and shocking to the conscience, and there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the City violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. In this case, plaintiff did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common spaces entered by the City's police officers, and any argument that the police officers may have physically intruded on constitutionally protected areas by trespassing in his buildings to search for incriminating evidence was waived. View "Azam v. City of Columbia Heights" on Justia Law

North Dakota may enforce the suspend-and-reimburse provisions of N.D.C.C. 65-05-05(2). The Eighth Circuit held that the reimbursement provision readily passed rational basis scrutiny and was not subject to equal protection or substantive due process challenges. Furthermore, the cost and difficulty of recovering benefits paid during the suspension period were a rational basis for the suspension provision. The court also held that the suspension provision did not violate North Dakota's constitutional obligation to provide full faith and credit to Colorado's death benefits provision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment on the pleadings for WSI. View "DeCrow v. North Dakota Workforce Safety & Insurance Fund" on Justia Law

A court must decide whether an arbitration agreement authorizes class arbitration. The Eighth Circuit held that the question of class arbitration belongs with the courts as a substantive question of arbitrability; questions concerning "whether the parties have submitted a particular dispute to arbitration" presumptively lie with the court; parties to an agreement may nonetheless commit the question to an arbitrator; and when dealing with class arbitration, the court sought clear and unmistakable evidence of an agreement to arbitrate the particular question of class arbitration. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's order denying Catamaran's motion for summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court shall determine whether such a "contractual basis" for class arbitration exists in the agreements between Catamaran and the pharmacies. View "Catamaran Corp. v. Towncrest Pharmacy" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendants' sentences for overlapping drug-distribution conspiracies. The court held that Defendant Evenson waived his objections to the career offender enhancement because he withdrew an objection to classifying his burglary convictions as crimes of violence in exchange for a downward adjustment reduction for mitigating role. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant Torres Alvarez a variance based on the traumas and difficulties he faced in the past where such factors were counterbalanced by the seriousness of his crime, particularly the quantities of drugs involved. View "United States v. Evenson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon and possession of a stolen firearm. The court held that the district court did not clearly err by determining that the government's peremptory strike of two Native American venirepersons was not based upon discriminatory purposes; defendant had no basis to challenge the district court's decision on whether or not to appoint counsel for prosecution witnesses; and the district court did not err by denying defendant's motions for mistrial and continuance where defendant failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion that caused him prejudice. View "United States v. Harding" on Justia Law

The State appealed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction preventing the enforcement of an Arkansas statute requiring medication-abortion providers to contract with a physician who has hospital admitting privileges. The Eighth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction, holding that the district court failed to make factual findings estimating the number of women burdened by the statute. On remand, the district court should conduct fact finding concerning the number of women unduly burdened by the contract-physician requirement and determine whether that number constitutes a "large fraction." View "Planned Parenthood of Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma v. Jegley" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the denial of disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI), holding that substantial evidence was insufficient to support the ALJ's denial of benefits. In this case, the ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment and hypothetical question to the vocational expert (VE) did not contain all impairments supported by substantial evidence in the record, and thus the VE's testimony was not substantial evidence. View "Gann v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, Kenny Gurley's mother, filed suit alleging numerous federal and state law causes of action after Gurley was involved in a physical altercation with two officers and died. On appeal, the officers and the Board sought interlocutory review of the district court's grant in part and denial in part of summary judgment on the basis of state and federal immunity. The Eighth Circuit held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on the 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims where the officers violated Gurley's constitutional right to be free from excessive force and the officers' actions were objectively unreasonable at the time. Furthermore, the officers were not entitled to official immunity on the state law claims where a jury could find that the officers acted with bad faith and malice. With respect to the Board, the court held that it was not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's section 1983 claim. However, the Board was protected by sovereign immunity on the wrongful death claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Lancaster v. Board of Police Commissioners" on Justia Law

HRA appealed the district court's order declining to grant pre-award interest on an insurance appraisal award. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the Minnesota Supreme Court subsequently ruled that Minnesota Statute section 549.09 provides for pre-award interest on such awards. On remand, the district court may decide in the first instance how to calculate the pre-award interest. View "Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Redwood Falls v. Housing Authority Property Insurance" on Justia Law