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

Before floodwaters destroyed plaintiffs' property, FEMA issued a flood-in-progress designation. Plaintiffs believed that the FEMA designation rendered their two Standard Flood Insurance Policies (SFIPs) worthless for the pending flood and elected to cancel them. Congress then passed the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (FIRA), Pub. L. No. 112-141, 100227(b), 126 Stat. 405, 943–44, a remedial amendment that would have extended coverage for plaintiffs but for the fact that they had canceled the SFIPs. Plaintiffs filed suit against American Bankers, the issuer of the SFIPs, seeking reinstatement of the SFIPs and payment for their flood loss. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that plaintiffs were chargeable with knowledge of the terms of the SFIPs and that the FIRA does not reinstate the canceled SFIPs. View "Hodde v. American Bankers Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for second degree murder and assault resulting in serious bodily injury. The victim is defendant's two-year-old daughter. The court concluded that the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim's injuries fell within the time period specified in the indictment and that sufficient evidence exists to support defendant's convictions on Counts 1 and 3; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a new trial based on prejudicial pretrial publicity; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the August 2011 spanking incident under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b); the court rejected defendant's claim that the district court abused its discretion in ruling that his stepson's testimony could be admissible as rebuttal evidence; the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to admit evidence of prior arrests, convictions, police reports, or character evidence related to the victim's mother and her husband; based on the Bureau of Prisons psychiatrist's medical opinion, the district court did not clearly err in finding defendant competent; defendant's mandatory minimum sentence provided in 18 U.S.C. 3559(f)(1) is not constitutional as applied to him; and defendant's sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment and was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Contreras" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Standard, asserting various claims after Standard determined that plaintiff was no longer disabled and discontinued benefits. The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiff, concluding that Standard abused its discretion in discontinuing long-term disability (LTD) benefits. In this case, Standard's decision was based on its determination that the disabling cognitive impairments suffered by plaintiff in a 2011 car accident had improved to the point that she could return full-time to her Own Occupation. The court concluded that the administrative record more than adequately supports the manner in which Standard addressed the Own Occupation issue in its final decision. The court also concluded that substantial evidence supported Standard's decision to discontinue benefits. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Whitley v. Standard Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his wife filed suit against numerous makers and distributors of microwave popcorn and butter flavoring. Plaintiff consumed microwave popcorn every day for approximately twenty years and alleged that defendants' products caused plaintiff's lung disease bronchiolitis obliterans. This appeal concerns one of the defendants, IFF. The court rejected plaintiff's claim that they are entitled to a new trial because the stricken testimony of one defendant's experts was prejudicial. In this case, plaintiff failed to object to the district court's curative instruction and they forfeited any error absent a showing of plain error - which they have not demonstrated. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's motion for an evidentiary hearing; the district court did not plainly err by admitting the rest of defendant's expert's testimony or by giving a prompt and thorough curative instruction concerning the stricken testimony; the court rejected plaintiff's claim that another expert's improper testimony requires a new trial where plaintiff's disagreement with the why the expert ruled out diacetyl as a cause of plaintiff's illness is far from grounds for a new trial; and the court rejected plaintiff's claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Finally, the court rejected plaintiff's claim for judgment as a matter of law where issues related to the breach of implied warranty claim are uncontested, and it was unnecessary for the jury to proceed to the question of affirmative defenses because the jury found in IFF’s favor on the breach-of-implied-warranty claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Stults v. International Flavors" on Justia Law

WEB2B filed for bankruptcy and turned over its balances to the Chapter 7 trustee. RAC filed suit claiming the balances of an express trust, resulting trust, or constructive trust. WEB2B provided automated clearinghouse and electronic-check conversion services to RAC. The bankruptcy court dismissed RAC's claims and granted summary judgment to the trustee. The court affirmed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's decision, concluding that the parties' processing agreement had no requirement to segregate RAC funds, nor a definite, unequivocal, explicit declaration of trust. Therefore, there was no express trust in this case. The district court did not err in concluding that the undisputed facts here do not show with reasonable certainty or beyond a reasonable doubt that a resulting trust exists. Finally, the district court properly concluded that RAC had identified no clear and convincing evidence of conversion sufficient to justify imposing a constructive trust on the remaining funds. View "Rent-A-Center East, Inc. v. Leonard" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, filed suit in 2006 against Missouri state and state officials after the Missouri General Assembly enacted statewide restrictions on pickets and protests near funerals and funeral processions. In 2014, Missouri appealed the statute at issue while plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion remained pending in district court. In this appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's adverse judgments on her due process claim as well as the court's award of attorneys' fees. The court vacated the district court's judgment on the due process claim and remanded with instructions to dismiss her claim as moot. In regard to the attorneys' fees, the court concluded that the district court's 2/14th calculation was an abuse of discretion because its arithmetically simplistic fee calculation did not accurately reflect her degree of success of her interrelated claims. Moreover, even if the court accepted the district court's basic mathematical approach, its 2/14th calculation is inaccurate because it did not address whether it counted consent judgments, mooted claims, and dismissed claims as prevailing, neutral, or unsuccessful claims. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's award of attorneys' fees. View "Phelps-Roper v. Koster" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, suffering a combination of impairments such as paranoid schizophrenia and depression, appealed the denial of his applications for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI). Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ’s residual functioning capacity (RFC) assessment does not adequately account for all the limitations he suffers due to the combination of paranoid schizophrenia, panic attacks, and chronic depression. The court found that the the ALJ did not rely solely on the opinions of the state agency doctors and sufficiently considered the medical records provided by plaintiff in assessing his RFC. The ALJ did consider the opinion of plaintiff's expert, but concluded that it was inconsistent with the rest of the doctor's report. Further, the ALJ also considered plaintiff's Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scores, but found that they were not controlling. In this case, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff's symptoms were reasonably controlled by medication and treatment. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's RFC determination and the RFC determination included the necessary limitations to account for plaintiff's mental impairments. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Mabry v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Defendants Benedict and Carpenter appealed their sentences and convictions for conspiracy and burglarizing various drug stores where they stole pharmaceutical products and cash from safes, registers, and ATMs. The court rejected defendant's claim that he was improperly denied a severance where the evidence is not sufficient to show that the jury could not have made a reliable judgment about Benedict's guilt or innocence because of the district court's limiting jury instructions; the district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Benedict's request to permit expert testimony because of Benedict's failure to make disclosures required under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b)(1)(C); furthermore, the subject of the proffered expert testimony was improper; and the evidence was sufficient to convict Benedict. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in ordering $53,729 in restitution from Carpenter to the targeted stores for sums of money taken from safes and cash registers during the burglaries; defendants are bound by their evidentiary stipulation and it was not plain error for the district court to accept it; and the district court did not err in applying enhancements under the sentencing guidelines for being career offenders as defined in USSG 4B1.1 where each defendant had prior convictions for commercial burglaries, offenses which were classified as crimes of violence under USSG 4B1.2. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Benedict" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for possessing a firearm as a felon and possessing a firearm not registered to him. The court concluded that evidence about a 2011 handgun incident was relevant to prove defendant knew about the shotgun next to him in the car and intended to possess it, and it made an innocent explanation for his behavior less likely. Further, the differences in the two incidents defendant emphasizes do not make the evidence inadmissible nor do they undermine its probative value. The court concluded that the handgun incident was similar enough to the facts of this case for the evidence to be relevant to defendant's mental state, a material element the government needed to prove. Defendant failed to identify any unfair prejudice allegedly outweighed by the probative value of the evidence. Further, the government did not expressly argue that defendant was guilty because he was the sort of person who would be likely to have a gun, and the court declined to view its description of the 2011 handgun incident as an attempt to do so surreptitiously. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to prove defendant possessed the shotgun; the government's innocuous question to a witness about whether he would repeat his grand jury testimony was not improper nor unfairly prejudicial; and the district court did not err by increasing his criminal history category by one level under USSG 4A1.3(a)(1) where calculations understated the seriousness of defendant's criminal history. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Green-Bowman" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Mexico, seeks review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's pretermitting his application for removal because petitioner committed theft in the fourth degree, a crime involving moral turpitude. The court concluded that, while the government bears the burden to prove the alien is deportable or removable, it is the alien's burden under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(4)(A)(i), to prove he is eligible for cancellation of removal; petitioner did not meet his burden to prove that the Iowa state court vacated his conviction for a substantive or procedural reason, and not for immigration purposes; and the IJ properly found his conviction for theft in the fourth degree qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude despite its vacatur. The court held that the BIA's interpretation that the cross-reference in 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(C) to an offense under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2) should be read only as a cross-reference to the list of offenses in the statute, not as a cross-reference to the statute as a whole. Therefore, the IJ did not err when it pretermitted petitioner's application for cancellation of removal on the grounds that he committed an offense under section 1227(a)(2), even though he was never admitted to the United States. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Andrade-Zamora v. Lynch" on Justia Law