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

Plaintiff filed a negligence action against Nucor after sustaining injuries while working at Nucor's steel mill. The district court granted summary judgment to Nucor, finding that the third-party waiver's (TPW) language and the circumstances of its execution met the standard for enforcement of exculpatory contracts under Arkansas law and that the agreement was not unconscionable. The court agreed with the district court that the TPW was enforceable where the parties stipulated that plaintiff had the opportunity to read the TPW, that he did not ask the trainer any questions concerning the meaning of the TPW, and that he had the ability to read and understand the contract. The court also concluded that the contract provision at issue is not unconscionable where there is no evidence rebutting Nucor's affidavit showing the availability of other work in the region at that time, plaintiff had the opportunity to read and understand the TPW, and there is no evidence of fraud, duress, misrepresentation, or any other inequitable conduct on the part of Vesuvius or Nucor. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Stewart, Jr. v. Nucor Corp." on Justia Law

Timothy Parks died from asphyxiation after the Gravely Promaster 152Z riding mower he was operating on his property fell off the edge of an embankment and rolled over on top of him. Plaintiff, Timothy's wife, filed suit alleging that the manufacturer of the 152Z, Ariens, was negligent for failing to equip the machine with a rollover protection system (ROPS). The district court granted summary judgment against plaintiff. The optional equipment doctrine holds that a manufacturer is, under certain circumstances, not negligent if a purchaser fails to buy optional safety equipment that would have prevented the accident. Although the Iowa Supreme Court has not yet considered the optional equipment doctrine, policy reasons and the popularity of the optional equipment doctrine lead the court to conclude that the Iowa court would adopt it. Therefore, in this case, the court concluded that Ariens fulfilled any duty it had to Timothy when it provided the ROPS as an optional feature for the 152Z mower and ensured that he had the information necessary to make an informed choice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Parks v. Ariens Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an African American man, filed suit against his employer, John Deere, alleging race discrimination and harassment in employment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and the Iowa Civil Rights Act of 1965 (ICRA), Iowa Code 216.1 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment to John Deere. The court concluded that, even if the court assumed that plaintiff ultimately suffered an adverse employment action, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any evidence that race was a motivating factor in John Deere's decision to discipline plaintiff. In this case, strong evidence supported John Deere's conclusion that plaintiff failed to follow instructions and ran scrap. Therefore, plaintiff's race discrimination claim failed. In regard to the race harassment/hostile work environment claim, the court concluded that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to John Deere in light of plaintiff's reliance on incompetent and inadmissible evidence. The unsworn and unattested statements purportedly from plaintiff’s co-workers and plaintiff’s related interrogatory answers do not meet the standards of FRCP 56(c)(4). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Banks v. John Deere & Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against a bus driver and the Metropolitan Council after the bus driver kicked plaintiff off the bus for failing to pay the bus fare, allowed passengers to exit the bus and physically remove plaintiff, and accelerated and braked multiple times in an attempt to knock plaintiff off the bus or to scare him away from the front of the bus. Plaintiff alleged that he suffered a bruised thigh, a bruised cheek, and scrapes on both of his hands. The district court granted summary judgment to the bus driver and the Metropolitan Council. Plaintiff appealed the grant of qualified immunity to the bus driver. The court agreed with the district court's application of the intent-to-harm standard, concluding that plaintiff failed to show that the bus driver's actions amounted to substantive due process where it is clear that the bus driver's objective in all of his actions was to remove plaintiff from the bus and to continue driving his route. The bus driver was was not acting in a manner to maliciously or sadistically cause plaintiff physical harm, and the bus driver's actions were related to his legitimate responsibilities of driving the bus. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the bus driver and the court affirmed the judgment. View "Truong v. Hassan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against two public officials in their official capacities, alleging that the procedures they enforce for placing initiatives on Nebraska state and municipal ballots violate his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and seeking declaratory and prospective injunctive relief. The district court dismissed all but the Fourteenth Amendment claim against Nebraska Secretary of State John Gale, entered judgment for plaintiff on that claim, enjoined Gale from enforcing certain provisions of the Nebraska Constitution, and awarded plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs. The Supreme Court made clear in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife that a wish to engage in future conduct, alone, does not provide the immediacy needed for threatened enforcement of a contested law to constitute injury in fact. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to establish standing to bring his Fourteenth Amendment claim where his interest in placing an initiative on the ballot, even if evidenced by a sworn statement and sample petition filed with Gale, is insufficient to establish an imminent threat of enforcement. Furthermore, plaintiff failed to prove he has standing to assert his interest as a petition signer where there is no evidence that plaintiff is registered to vote. Accordingly, the court vacated that portion of the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions. View "Bernbeck v. Gale" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 50 kilograms of marijuana. The district court subsequently denied defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and denied defense counsel's motion to withdraw. The court upheld the district court's denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea because the plea was based on defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel where the claim directly contradicts the statements defendant made under oath at his guilty plea hearing. The court concluded that the district court did not need to conduct an evidentiary hearing where defendant's motion failed to put forth a fair and just reason to withdraw the plea, provided no specific facts supporting a claim of ineffective assistance, and was directly contradicted by his statements under oath at the change-of-plea hearing. Furthermore, the district court did not err by not appointing substitute counsel where the claim of conflict of interest is without merit. Finally, the district court did not improperly coerce defendant into withdrawing his objections to the PSR’s drug quantity findings, and did not err in adopting the PSR’s drug quantity calculation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Trevino" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murdering his ex-wife and kidnapping their three children, seeks habeas relief, arguing that the state trial court violated the Constitution when it refused to strike a juror as biased. The court concluded that the juror's response to a mental illness defense question, in isolation, is insufficient for petitioner to demonstrate that the state courts unreasonably determined that the juror was impartial. Even if the juror's statement amounted to a contradiction, the trial court was in a unique position to make the necessary credibility determination. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Munt v. Grandlienard" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm (Count 1) and for being a felon in possession of ammunition (Count 2). The court concluded that the district court did not err in excluding the dash camera video where defendant failed to show how not playing the video affected his substantial rights or had more than a slight influence on the verdict; the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding photographs taken by a defense investigator depicting the area where the police arrested defendant and found the firearm because defendant violated Rule 16(b)(1)(A) by failing to produce them to the government in pre-trial discovery, and defendant points to no controverted issues at trial that the inclusion of the photographs would have helped resolve; the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find defendant guilty of being a felon in possession of ammunition; but, the district court erred in sentencing defendant as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1) where his third degree domestic battery conviction cannot categorically be determined as a crime of violence under the force clause. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. Eason" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against ASB, claiming wrongful interference with his rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 26 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in its factual determination that, at the time ASB fired him, plaintiff’s back condition met the objective criteria of a chronic condition; the district court acted well within its discretion in awarding liquidated damages to plaintiff where the district court found that ASB knew plaintiff was attempting to take FMLA leave, but fired him before it even received, let alone reviewed, plaintiff’s application for FMLA leave; and the court rejected ASB's challenges to the award of attorney's fees and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exclude any evidence of plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply judicial estoppel to the facts of this case, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in not limiting the attorney's fees. In regard to plaintiff's cross-appeal, the court concluded that the district court's finding that ASB met its burden to prove that plaintiff was released from jail on July 20, 2011, was clearly erroneous under the after-acquired evidence doctrine. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Smith v. AS America, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions and his sentence for receipt of child pornography and possession of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant's motion to withdraw his nolo contendere plea where the court found no fair and just reason to grant withdrawal. However, the court concluded that defendant's two convictions violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because they arise out of the same act or transaction. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions for the district court to vacate one of defendant's convictions and to resentence him. View "United States v. Harvey" on Justia Law