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

Debtors Mathew and Marilynn held title to real property as joint tenants with Marilynn's parents. After debtors filed for bankruptcy, and Marilynn's parents died, the Trustee notified debtors that he intended to sell the real estate and a pickup truck Marilynn and her father owned as joint tenants. The Trustee maintained that the right of survivorship made the bankruptcy estate the sole owner. The court concluded that the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel did not err in affirming the sale of the real property and pickup because the joint tenancies remained intact through creation of the bankruptcy estate and therefore the bankruptcy estate included the joint tenancies. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Peet v. Checkett" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant where a reasonable jury could have found that the special agent's testimony established that defendant possessed the firearm and quickly disposed of it in a vehicle before raising his hands and surrendering to law enforcement. The court also concluded that defendant failed to raise a colorable claim of outside influence to warrant an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, a new trial, or an evidentiary hearing on the allegations of juror misconduct. View "United States v. Muhammad" on Justia Law

32nd Street filed suit against the insurers for quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and vexatious refusal to pay an insurance claim, as well as injunctive relief arising out of medical services provided to the insurers' insureds. The district court granted summary judgment for the insurers and denied 32nd Street's motion to compel discovery. The court concluded that the plain language of the provisions at issue support the district court's conclusion that, in the ancillary-provider agreement, 32nd Street agreed to accept the Blue Traditional rate for services rendered to insureds belonging to all of the insurers’ networks; the district court did not err by finding that the equitable claims were barred by the contracts governing the reimbursement rates paid by the insurers; the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the insurers on the vexatious-refusal claim where 32nd Street fails to establish any genuine issue of material fact that the insurers refused to pay an amount due under an insurance policy; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying 32nd Street's motion to compel. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "32nd St. Surgery Ctr. v. Right Choice Managed Care" on Justia Law

American Family filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment as to whether an umbrella insurance policy issued to Todd Patton provided any coverage for an automobile accident in which a passenger in a vehicle driven by Todd's son, Jacob Patton, was seriously injured. The district court granted summary judgment for American Family. The court concluded that the Pattons breached the umbrella policy's cooperation clause by entering into a Miller-Shugart agreement after already being protected from personal liability in the Drake-Ryan settlement, and that such breach was material and prejudicial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "American Family Mutual Ins. v. Donaldson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed an amended judgment sentencing him to the statutory maximum of 120 months in prison for possessing an unregistered sawed-off shotgun. The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California and affirmed the amended judgment; concluded that there was no plain error in the district court's application of the USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement because unchallenged facts in the presentence report supported the enhancement; concluded that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable; and concluded, by reviewing the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Webster" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the MPRB and the superintendent of the MPRB, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violations of her First Amendment and equal protection rights, as well as for reprisal and aiding and abetting race and color discrimination under state law. The district court granted in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Plaintiff asserts that the negative performance evaluation, suspensions and write-ups, a performance improvement plan, and refusal to promote her constituted adverse employment actions. Performance ratings that have a negative impact on promotion potential do not constitute an adverse employment action unless the rating actually led to the denial of the promotion. In this case, plaintiff has not offered any evidence that defendants would have chosen her for a promotion absent the comments at issue. The court found that plaintiff has not presented any evidence that the performance evaluations were actually used in the promotion decision or that the comments regarding plaintiff’s protected speech negatively influenced the decision. Furthermore, defendants have proffered non-retaliatory reasons for the alleged adverse employment actions, including plaintiff’s failure to reprimand subordinates appropriately. The court also concluded that the state law claims belongs in state court and the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of the claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Wilson v. Miller" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal from an IJ's decision (1) finding him removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), for having been convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT) not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct, and (2) denying his application for cancellation of removal. The court concluded that all four of petitioner's convictions under Iowa Code Annotated 708.2A, including his third and fourth convictions under the section 708.2A(4)'s recidivist provision, are dependent upon the definition of "assault" in section 708.1(2). "Because [§ 708.1] is divisible into discrete subsections of turpitudinous acts and nonturpitudinous acts," petitioner's domestic-abuse assault convictions do not categorically constitute CIMTs. Therefore, the BIA erred in declining to review petitioner's record of convictions, under the modified categorical approach, to determine whether he was convicted under a subsection that describes a CIMT. The court granted the petition for review, vacated, and remanded for the BIA to consider the issue in the first instance. View "Perez Alonzo v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of pseudoephedrine, knowing it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine. After Amendment 782 to the Guidelines retroactively lowered the base offense level for this offense, defendant filed a motion to reduce his sentence. The district court determined that defendant was eligible for a discretionary reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), but denied the motion because the court believed that a reduction of defendant’s sentence would present a risk of danger to the community. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion based on defendant's prison conduct violations. The court affirmed because the district court's explanation was more than sufficient to allow the court to meaningfully review how its substantial sentencing discretion was exercised. View "United States v. Boyd" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal from an IJ's decision finding him removable as an alien who was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years of his admission to the United States. The court found the Fifth Circuit's reasoning persuasive and held that petitioner's submission of the I-751 petition constituted an overt act in furtherance of his conspiracy to commit marriage fraud, thereby extending his conspiracy crime to a date within five years of his admission to the United States. Accordingly, the court upheld the BIA's finding of removability. View "Ashraf v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a citizen and political activist, filed suit against the Township and its clerk, alleging violations of his Minnesota and federal constitutional rights and unlawful retaliation. The district court dismissed the suit. Plaintiff alleged that the Township targeted him specifically and prevented him from viewing and photocopying the type of documents generally available to the public. The court concluded that plaintiff has no cause of action under the Minnesota Constitution because there is no private cause of action for violations of the Minnesota Constitution. Furthermore, the Township did not "create" a common law right by allowing plaintiff and others some access to documents. The court also concluded that plaintiff's First Amendment claim was properly dismissed because the Township did not create a First Amendment right to access all information simply by allowing plaintiff and other members of the public some access to its documents. Finally, plaintiff has failed to show any chilling effect on his constitutional rights, and plaintiff did not engage in protected activity by filing the lawsuit and his claim of retaliation fails. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Eggenberger v. West Albany Township" on Justia Law