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

After a surgical procedure was performed on Elliot Kaplan as a result of a misdiagnosis, the Kaplans filed suit against Mayo for medical malpractice, breach of contract, lack of informed consent, and loss of consortium. The district court dismissed all claims against Dr. Nagorney, the surgeon who performed the medical procedure; the district court granted Mayo's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the breach-of-contract claim; and the jury returned a verdict for defendants on the malpractice claim. On appeal, the court upheld the jury verdict but vacated the judgment in favor of Mayo on the breach-of-contract claim, and held that the district court erred by requiring expert testimony to establish a contract breach and remanded the claim to trial. The district court subsequently entered judgment for Mayo. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the district court's finding that Dr. Nagorney did not promise to do a biopsy of Elliot’s pancreas during the surgery and that no meeting of the minds occurred to form a contract. The court rejected plaintiffs' claim that this court, in Kaplan I, forbid defendants' use of expert testimony to establish a defense to the claim of a special contract in the performance of the operation. Because the district court committed no error, the court upheld the district court's factual findings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kaplan v. Mayo Clinic" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action against TMBC, challenging TMBC's nationwide practice of charging a document fee when selling boats and trailers under form contracts governed by Missouri law. The district court approved class certification and then granted summary judgment to the class, awarding treble damages and attorney fees. The district court determined that TMBC prepared legal documents attendant to its sales and that charging a fee for those documents constituted unauthorized law business in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. 484.010 and 484.020. Both parties appealed. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the class as ultimately defined met the requirements of Rule 23 and certifying the case as a class action; the district court did not err in granting the class members' motion for summary judgment or in calculating damages based upon the entire document fee; and the district court did not err in applying Missouri law to sales that occurred outside Missouri. Accordingly, the court affirmed as to these issues. The court then addressed plaintiffs' contention that the district court erred when it held that the attorneys’ fees should be paid from the common fund rather than paid by TMBC pursuant to the contractual fee-shifting provision, concluding that enforcement of the fee-shifting provision honors both the contract and the principles underlying the common fund doctrine. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings as to the award. The court noted that if the district court, on remand, should determine that counsel for the class is entitled to additional fees from the common fund, apart from those reasonable expenses covered by the fee-shifting provision, it is not prohibited from awarding additional fees. View "McKeage v. TMBC, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 108 month sentence, arguing that the district court gave significant weight to an improper factor in determining his sentence. In this case, the court explained that it need not decide the incongruity between defendant's child care and his proven out-of-state drug distribution, and whether it would be an improper factor to consider. The court found that the district court's remark did not indicate that it relied on it to any meaningful degree. Rather, the district court discussed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, including the crime of conviction, defendant's family history, current marijuana use, gang association, fugitive status, criminal acts while a fugitive, and conduct during arrest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Wrice" on Justia Law

After the Iowa State University (ISU) student chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML ISU) had several of its trademark licensing requests denied because its designs included a cannabis leaf, two members of the student group filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, alleging various violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court granted plaintiffs summary judgment in part and entered a permanent injunction against defendants. The court concluded that plaintiffs suffered an injury in fact in their individual capacities, and that they therefore have standing to bring this action. The court reasoned that plaintiffs' allegations that ISU violated their First Amendment rights by rejecting their designs and therefore preventing their ability to spread NORML ISU's message are sufficient to establish an injury in fact. The court also concluded that qualified immunity is not an issue here because this appeal solely concerns plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief; the district court did not err by concluding that defendants violated plaintiffs' First Amendment rights because defendants engaged in viewpoint discrimination and did not argue that their administration of the trademark licensing program was narrowly tailored to satisfy a compelling governmental interest; and NORML ISU's use of the cannabis leaf does not violate ISU's trademark policies because the organization advocates for reform to marijuana laws, not the illegal use of marijuana. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Gerlich v. Leath" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and 18 month sentence for making a threatening communication. The court rejected defendant's claim that the government repeatedly committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument by stating that defendant was not presumed innocent, indirectly commenting on his failure to testify, expressing its opinion on his guilt, and personally attacking his counsel. In this case, none of the actions defendant complains of were improper and thus the court concluded that the government committed no reversible prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in admitting defendant's 2013 conversation with a federal employee, in which defendant's comments were perceived as threatening; in imposing GPS monitoring as a condition of supervised release because it was reasonable and narrowly tailored as possible; and by imposing a total alcohol ban and substance abuse treatment because he waived any challenge to these conditions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. LaFontaine" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Wells Fargo in 2008, alleging claims related to Wells Fargo's practice of automatically ordering and charging fees for property inspections when customers fell behind on their mortgage payments. The parties reached a settlement agreement in 2015, providing that Wells Fargo will pay $25,750,000 in full settlement to all class claims. On appeal, movant challenged the district court's order approving the settlement, which required one subgroup of class members to submit proofs of claim before receiving payment. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of standing because movant is not a member of this subgroup and suffered no injury from this requirement. In this case, movant would not benefit from the changes she seeks. View "Huyer v. Van de Voorde" on Justia Law

The Department challenges the bankruptcy court's determination that debtor's student loans are dischargeable based on undue hardship under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(8). The bankruptcy appellate panel concluded that there is no error in the bankruptcy court's determination where the evidence supports the bankruptcy court's conclusion that debtor's income has been consistent and is unlikely to improve in the future; debtor's monthly expenses are reasonable, necessary, modest and commensurate with her income; and debtor's emotional burden related to the student loan obligations, the continued accrual of interest on the loans, the negative credit effect of the loans, and the potential tax obligation when the repayment plan expires were in error also weigh in favor of discharging the student loans for undue hardship. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment. View "Fern v. FedLoan Servicing" on Justia Law

After he was injured, an ARI employee filed a civil suit against ARI and was awarded over $1.5 million in damages. ARI then sought insurance coverage against Hartford. The district court granted summary judgment for Hartford. The court affirmed, concluding that ARI did not strictly comply with the policy's notification provision and forfeited any right to recover from Hartford. Furthermore, the Hartford attorney did not unambiguously deny coverage and thus Hartford is not estopped from enforcing its notice provision. View "American Railcar Industries v. Hartford Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The city entered into an agreement with Acciona, a manufacturer and installer of wind generation systems, where Acciona would expand its business in West Branch if the city would consider rebating a portion of Acciona's taxes each year for eight years. After paying rebates for three years, the city refused to pay subsequent rebates and ultimately cancelled the agreement. The district court concluded that the city breached the contract and awarded Acciona damages. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Acciona's actions were essentially harmless because they resulted in no surprise or prejudice to the City. In this case, Acciona sought compensatory damages for multiple fiscal years from the very beginning of this lawsuit. Acciona's pretrial clarification that the company would seek compensatory damages for fiscal years 2013 and 2014 was therefore entirely consistent with the theory of damages articulated by Acciona. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Acciona Windpower v. City of West Branch" on Justia Law

Adam Fetzer, a delivery driver for the Papa John's restaurant chain, was killed in a car accident in the course of his employment when another driver ran a red light and struck his vehicle. Mary Hegel, the personal representative of Fetzer's estate, sought underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage under a business auto insurance policy issued by American Fire to Papa John's. After American Fire denied the claim, the district court granted summary judgment against American Fire. The court concluded that the district court erred in applying North Dakota law and thus finding American Fire was required to provide UIM coverage to Papa John's. Rather, the policy is subject to Kentucky law, which does not require such coverage. Therefore, American Fire is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law. The court reversed and remanded. View "American Fire and Casualty Co. v. Hegel" on Justia Law