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

The FPD appealed the district court's order compelling Terry McAtee, an Assistant Federal Public Defender, to reveal communications that he had with his client, Randy Beltramea. McAtee represented Beltramea, who had been indicted for fraud and subsequently entered into a plea agreement. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In this case, the FPD, on behalf of McAtee, moved the district court to quash the subpoena and then immediately appealed the district court's denial. McAtee has yet to refuse compliance and he has not been held in contempt, a final judgment that he has a right to appeal. Therefore, subsequent appellate review is not impossible. View "United States v. Beltramea" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of supplemental security income (SSI) and disability insurance benefits (DIB). Plaintiff alleged disability due to diabetes mellitus, heart problems, fatigue, and chest, back and leg pain. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's finding that plaintiff has the residual functioning capacity to perform sedentary work; the ALJ properly discounted the opinion of plaintiff's physician, Dr. Johnson, based upon lack of support in the examination record; the ALJ adequately explained that he discounted plaintiff's description of limited daily activities because it could not be adequately verified, was inconsistent with the “relatively weak medical evidence,” and was not supported by corresponding specific restrictions on activities imposed by a treating physician; and the ALJ did not err in accepting the testimony of the vocational expert where the testimony constituted substantial evidence to support the ALJ's finding at step five of the sequential evaluation process. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Boyd v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that Beresford breached the terms of an option contract by selling their former farm to the Gords. Plaintiffs also claim that the Gords tortiously interfered with their contract with Beresford. The district court granted summary judgment for Beresford and the Gords based on the preclusive effect of a prior state-court judgment. The court concluded that the doctrine of claim preclusion bars plaintiffs' claims against Beresford where the state court's grant of summary judgment in Finstad I was on the merits, this federal case involves the same parties as Finstad I, and plaintiffs' claim of judicial estoppel was rejected. Plaintiffs brought two claims in Finstad I and the state district court entered separate conclusions of law on these two claims. These two conclusions were not alternative holdings; each resolved a separate claim in the complaint. Therefore, in affirming the grant of summary judgment for the Gords on all claims, the state supreme court affirmed both conclusions. Because the Finstad I court necessarily decided that plaintiffs lacked a contractual interest in the farmland, plaintiffs are barred from relitigating that issue here. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Finstad v. Beresford Bancorporation, Inc." on Justia Law

Reynal Caldwell appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of his ex-wife, Theresa Caldwell Lavender, and her attorney Alan E. DeWoskin and his law firm. Caldwell also appeals the denial of his motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to DeWoskin and Lavender based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Caldwell's claims challenge the actions taken by DeWoskin and Lavender in seeking and executing state contempt orders, rather than the state court orders themselves. The court remanded to the bankruptcy court to determine whether Caldwell’s claims are precluded based on the state court’s determination that the automatic stay did not bar its contempt proceedings. View "Caldwell v. Dewoskin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against the Department, alleging a sexual harassment claim based on hostile work environment and a retaliation claim. The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b). In support of her sexual harassment claim based on hostile work environment, plaintiff alleges seven incidents of harassment by two different men over a nearly three-year period. The court found as a matter of law that plaintiff's complaint failed to show harassment so severe or pervasive that they satisfy the high threshold for a sexual harassment claim based on hostile work environment. The court also found that plaintiff's purported "direct evidence" of retaliation fails as a matter of law for lack of causation where she failed to plausibly allege that the retaliation was a but-for cause of the Department's adverse action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Blomker v. Jewell" on Justia Law

After Joseph Kronberg was electrocuted and died while working at an oil well as an employee of Nabors, Mr. Kronberg's widow filed wrongful death and survival actions against Oasis Petroleum and others. The district court granted summary judgment for Oasis and RPM Consulting. The court concluded that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to RPM Consulting’s lack of control over an independent contractor's, Michael Bader, safety practices; RPM Consulting owed no duty to Mr. Kronberg under the doctrine of retained control; and thus neither company may be held vicariously liable for Bader’s alleged negligence as a company hand. The court also concluded that Oasis did now owe Mr. Kronberg a duty of care under North Dakota premises liability law where the record does not support a finding that Oasis controlled the property and had an opportunity to observe dangerous conditions at the well. Finally, the court concluded that Oasis did not have a duty to provide an automated external defibrillator at the well where the court could not predict that the North Dakota Supreme Court would adopt the proposed common law duty. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kronberg v. Oasis Petroleum" on Justia Law

League Commissioner Roger Goodell, during the 2014 football season, suspended Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson indefinitely and fined Peterson a sum equivalent to six games' pay. Peterson’s suspension stemmed from his plea of nolo contendere in November 2014 to a charge of misdemeanor reckless assault on one of his children. After Peterson appealed his discipline to an arbitrator, the arbitrator affirmed the suspension and fine. The district court then granted Peterson's petition to vacate the arbitration decision and the League appealed. The Commissioner subsequently reinstated Peterson. At issue in this appeal is whether the League may collect the fine imposed by the Commissioner and upheld by the arbitrator. The court concluded that the parties bargained to be bound by the decision of the arbitrator, and the arbitrator acted within his authority. The court rejected the Association's remaining contentions that the arbitrator was "evidently partial' and that the arbitration was “fundamentally unfair.” Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s judgment vacating the arbitration decision and the court remanded with directions to dismiss the petition. View "NFL Players Ass'n v. National Football League" on Justia Law

The Chapter 7 trustee appeals from the bankruptcy court’s judgment and order in favor of Sunset Cove on issues of turnover and preference. The bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) concluded that the posting of the execution application and order on the boat slip at issue was sufficient as a notice of levy and created a valid lien on the boat slip under Missouri law. The sheriff’s failure to give required notice to the debtor did not invalidate the levy or the lien. In this case, the trustee did not present to the bankruptcy court any evidence of prejudice to the debtor or the estate as a result of the lack of notice. Accordingly, the BAP affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment. View "Rouse v. Sunset Cove Condo." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former police captain, filed suit against the City and city officials under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the City violated her constitutional right to due procedural process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by terminating her employment. The district court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for summary judgment. The district court denied the defense of qualified immunity asserted by Chief Burton in response to plaintiff's procedural due process claim. Chief Burton appealed. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding Chief Burton's role in the termination of plaintiff. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "Bramblet v. City of Columbia, MO" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's motion to suppress the packages of methamphetamine gathered during the search of his vehicle. In this case, defendant gave the officers unqualified consent to search; defendant did not object or otherwise withdraw his consent when an officer indicated that the search would continue at a second location or that the car wheel would be removed; and therefore the officers reasonably could have concluded that defendant’s consent extended to the continued search at headquarters. The court also concluded that the officers had probable cause to drill into the trunk to reach the hidden compartment. Accordingly, the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress and the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Zamora-Garcia" on Justia Law