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

Lohse lived with his girlfriend and her three-year-old daughter, K.S. Lohse’s girlfriend discovered images on an SD card, depicting K.S., clothed and sleeping in a natural position on a bed, and Lohse, naked and positioned so that his penis was on or near K.S.’s face. She contacted law enforcement. A search was executed at the house that day. Officers seized several devices that were found to contain child pornography. Lohse was charged, based on the images found on the SD card, under 18 U.S.C. 2251(a) and (e) alleging that he “used and attempted to use a minor under the age of 18 to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing visual depictions of such conduct.” Lohse argued that the images did not depict “sexually explicit conduct,”, because the display of genitals was not lascivious. The district court denied the motion. He was ultimately charged with receipt of child pornography and four counts of possession of child pornography. Each possession count related to a different device. For the receipt offense, the government identified four videos that had been downloaded. The Eighth Circuit affirmed his convictions, rejecting challenges to denial of the motion to dismiss and to the verdict form. View "United States v. Lohse" on Justia Law

Needler filed a petition for Chapter 11 relief on behalf of “Miller Chrysler Dodge.” Because Needler is not admitted to practice in the Western District of Missouri, he moved to appear pro hac vice and to be employed as debtor’s attorney. The bankruptcy court agreed, stating that his fees and activities would be closely scrutinized. The Trustee discovered that the named entity did not legally exist and, when the error was not timely corrected, moved to dismiss. Needler filed an amended petition under the proper name. Needler subsequently received several orders to show cause for failure to comply with local filing requirements. Needler was unsuccessful in obtaining authority for the debtor to use cash collateral and to retain a broker to sell the business. Relief from the automatic stay was obtained by the primary creditors. Ultimately, the case was dismissed on the debtor’s motion. The court closed the file. Six months later, the Trustee moved to reopen under 11 U.S.C. 350(b), asserting that she had received a complaint from the debtor: that Needler failed to communicate accurate information, made potentially false and misleading representations, and may have filed documents and taken actions that were not authorized. Needler had filed a state court action for attorney fees of $49,000.00 and sought $63,000.00 more in fees and $3,600.00 in expenses. The Eighth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed denial of the fee application and the order of disgorgement. Since Needler was a repeat offender, in many jurisdictions, the bankruptcy court acted within its discretion in imposing the sanction of indefinite suspension from the practice of law and revocation of electronic filing privileges. View "Needler v. Casamatta" on Justia Law

Shortly before Pettaway was to be released from federal prison, the government sought his commitment under 18 U.S.C. 4246 on grounds that he was mentally ill and dangerous. After a hearing, the district court committed Pettaway for hospitalization and treatment, finding by clear and convincing evidence that commitment was appropriate. The Eighth Circuit vacated, expressing no opinion as to the appropriateness of Pettaway’s commitment, but stating that the commitment order must do more than recite Pettaway’s mental diagnosis and the opinions of mental health professionals that Pettaway’s unconditional release would create the relevant risk of dangerousness. The court heard contrary evidence in the form of testimony from Pettaway and must give some indication as to what information in the record it relied upon– such as Pettaway’s behavioral or psychological history; results of formalized assessments; recent observations, treatment notes, or interview impressions of mental health professionals; or its impressions of Pettaway’s own testimony – in reaching its conclusion. View "United States v. Pettaway" on Justia Law

A shed on the Brandweins’ leased property caught fire. Neighbors called for assistance and knocked on the door of the residence, but received no response. Concerned that a truck parked near the shed would catch fire, a neighbor moved it, using keys he found in its ignition. The neighbor noticed a loaded rifle on the ground nearby. Officers arrived. Informed that all of the Brandweins’ vehicles were present, officers knocked loudly several times, and became concerned that there may be injured persons inside the home. They used keys from the truck to enter the house, where they saw drug paraphernalia and firearms in plain view. Officers continued to announce their presence. Brandwein emerged from the bedroom, fully dressed, sweating profusely, and apparently disoriented. Brandwein’s wife returned. An officer noticed large glass jars containing what he believed to be methamphetamine, informed the wife that he was going to secure the residence and apply for a search warrant. The district court found that she consented to a search, but returned to the kitchen, and cleaned the jars. Brandwein, charged with the unlawful possession of six firearms as a previously convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1); 924(a)(2), and attempted manufacturing of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C),; 846, unsuccessfully moved to suppress all evidence. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial and his firearms conviction. He was acquitted on the drug charge. View "United States v. Brandwein" on Justia Law

After he was arrested in an undercover sting operation conducted by law enforcement, Wolff was charged by Indictment with one count of attempted sex trafficking of a minor, 18 U.S.C. 1591 and 1594. Wolff moved to dismiss the Indictment, arguing the government had to prove an actual minor victim—not an undercover officer—was involved in the offense. The district court denied the motion. Wolff then entered a conditional plea of guilty. The Eighth Circuit affirmed: the statute prohibiting attempted sex trafficking of a minor does not require that an actual minor victim be the object of the attempt. View "United States v. Wolff" on Justia Law

Burlington purchased more than $8 million worth of cast vinyl film products from Ritrama to manufacture graphic decals for customers in the recreational vehicle (RV) industry. No later than early 2008, Burlington reported to Ritrama that RV owners were experiencing issues with the graphics. In September, 2008, Burlington sent Ritrama a spreadsheet detailing three claims for monetary damages based on the product failures, which totaled $53,219.37. The companies discussed settlement. In early 2009, Ritrama purchased a commercial general liability insurance policy from Gerling that provided coverage for claims made between March 31, 2009, and March 31, 2010. The policy did not define “claim.” On July 17, 2009, Ritrama advised its insurance agent of its issues with Burlington. The insurance agent sent a "notice of occurrence" to Gerling. Ritrama claims that the notice was not an acknowledgment of a claim, but merely a notification of a "customer having problems." Ritrama failed to meet Burlington's demands. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Gerling. Burlington demanded money in 2008 and, before inception of the Policy, Ritrama attempted to settle existing and future claims for damages based on the RV adhesive issues. Although these communications did not involve an attorney or expressly refer to litigation, Burlington clearly demanded compensation. View "Ritrama, Inc. v. HDI-Gerling Am. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The Schmidts operate a farm Worthington, Minnesota. Madison hosted a sleepover party at the family farm to celebrate her twelfth birthday. A guest, 10-year old Alyssa, was driving the Schmidts' ATV around the property when the ATV struck a tree. Alyssa died as a result of the accident. The Schmidts tendered defense of a wrongful death action to Grinnell under their farm policy, which provided $300,000 in coverage. Grinnell initially informed the Schmidts the policy appeared to provide coverage, but reserved its right to dispute coverage and sought a declaratory judgment. The wrongful death action settled for $462,500. Both parties agree the coverage dispute turns on whether Jerome or Kelly – the named insureds – gave Alyssa "express permission" to operate the ATV within the meaning of an exclusion contained in the Select Recreational Vehicle Limited Liability Coverage endorsement. The Eight Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Schmidts. While the Schmidts observed the girls on the ATV and did not object, Alyssa never “expressly” sought permission, so her conduct did not fall within the exclusion. View "Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance v. Schmidt" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are same-sex couples seeking to marry in Arkansas, South Dakota, or Nebraska or to have their marriage in another state recognized in those states. They also sought state benefits incident to marriage. The district court granted Plaintiffs summary judgment, finding that state laws denying them the right to marry violate the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection. While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges, (2015), abrogating Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning (2006). The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The challenged laws are unconstitutional. As Obergefell concluded: [T]he right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. View "Waters v. Ricketts" on Justia Law

Central States, a multi-employer trust fund governed by ERISA, provides health and welfare benefits to participants in the teamster industry. Student Assurance processed claims for student accident policies. Central States claimed that it paid medical expenses of $137, 204 for 13 junior high, high school, and college student-athletes who were covered dependents under its plan and who sustained athletic injuries. Central States sought reimbursement from Student Assurance, which refused to pay. Central States alleged that according to the coordination of benefits provision of its plan, the student accident policies supply primary coverage for the students’ covered medical expenses. Student Assurance claimed that the student accident policies are excess policies, and that they are not obligated to pay until Central States has reached the maximum contribution under its plan. Central States sued, citing federal common law and section 502(a)(3) of ERISA, seeking declaratory relief, restitution, and the imposition of an equitable lien and constructive trust to secure reimbursement for the benefits paid on behalf of the common insureds. The district court dismissed, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the claims, while ostensibly seeking equitable remedies, were actually for legal relief that is unavailable under section 502(a)(3). View "Cent. States, SE & SW Areas Health & Welfare Fund v. Student Assurance Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

King pled guilty in Arkansas state court to 1,577 counts of forgery and theft of property for embezzling more than $700,000 from the school district where she worked. The court sentenced King to 80 years imprisonment, within the guidelines range. King had no criminal history and claims she accepted the plea because of threats that her husband and son would also be charged. Five months later, the court reduced King’s sentence to 20 years imprisonment, under Arkansas Code 16-90-111, which allows a trial court to “correct an illegal sentence at any time” or to “correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within . . . ninety (90) days after the sentence is imposed.” The state appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court, which reinstated King’s 80-year sentence, finding the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the reduction because the 90-day period for doing so had expired. King sought federal habeas relief. Although the district court was clearly sympathetic, it found no grounds for habeas relief. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that King is not entitled to habeas relief based on her disagreement with the Arkansas Supreme Court’s interpretation of Arkansas law. View "King v. Kelley" on Justia Law