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

Convent filed suit in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, seeking to appeal a resolution that the North Little Rock City Council passed declaring Convent's property a nuisance and condemning the property. In the same complaint, Convent asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988 and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, Ark. Code 16-123-101, and a common law claim of trespass. The defendants removed the case to federal district court based on the federal claims and then moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court did not grant the motion, but found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Convent's claims based on Convent's failure to exhaust its administrative remedies; the court remanded the case to state court. Convent sought costs, fees, and expenses incurred due to “improper removal." The district court rejected the motion. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The defendants had an objectively reasonable basis for removal of this action to federal court. View "Convent Corp. v. City of North Little Rock" on Justia Law

Detectives approached people in Kinlock, Missouri, after observing apparent drug transactions. Seeing the detectives, Adams clutched his waistband and fled. Detective Hinds testified that, while in pursuit, he saw Adams brandish a semi-automatic pistol and point it at the detectives. Hinds signaled to the other detectives that he saw a firearm and ordered Adams to drop it. Adams did not comply. Hinds fired two rounds at Adams. According to several detectives, Adams dropped the firearm. Detective Becker stayed with the weapon while others continued the pursuit and apprehended Adams. Both detectives testified that while in custody, Adams made incriminating statements. Adams was indicted as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The government moved in limine to introduce, under Rule 404(b), evidence of a 2008 felon in possession conviction and a 2005 conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, to prove his knowledge of firearms and his intent to possess a firearm. After Adams's defense elicited testimony, questioning whether Adams actually possessed the firearm, the court granted the motion, stating that "do we really think that there's anybody in the world who doesn't know what a gun is … it's … really saying propensity." The judge noted that Eighth Circuit precedent supporting admission of such evidence is ample, and “I'm just trying to ask for an explanation.” The court twice gave a limiting instruction that the jury could only consider Adams's prior convictions to show his knowledge or intent, not to show propensity. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Adams" on Justia Law

From 1978 to 2008 Stanley worked as a hauler for Allied and was responsible for loading and unloading cars from his trailer. In 2008, Stanley attempted to unload a car from the upper deck of a 55 foot, eight car trailer manufactured by Cottrell. He lifted himself onto the upper deck railing of the trailer, moved sideways across the railing, and placed his right hand on the trunk of the car. As he reached for the car door with his left hand, he lost his hold and fell, landing on his back and leg. His back was not seriously injured, but his leg has been operated on seven times, resulting in $642,797.38 in medical costs. Stanley sued, alleging negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, and outrage, claiming that his trailer was defective under Missouri law because it was not equipped with additional fall protections such as ladders, handholds, and extended catwalks. After contrasting expert testimony, a jury found for Cottrell. Stanley moved for a new trial, arguing that the court erred by refusing to allow the testimony of rebuttal witnesses and by its jury instructions on his negligence and strict liability claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed denial of his motions and award of $11,171.92 in costs to Cottrell. View "Stanley v. Cottrell Inc." on Justia Law

Expander Global conducts no business and is merely a holding company for its wholly owned subsidiary, Expander SystemSweden, another Swedish corporation. Expander Sweden wholly owns Expander Americas. Those companies manufacture industrial pins used in heavy machinery. In 2010, Eagle entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement with Expander Americas to provide consulting services. The Agreement led to a relationship between Global and Bakker, Eagle’s sole owner, who acted as a project manager and as secretary of the Global Board of Directors. In 2011, Global terminated Bakker from his positions and its agreement with Eagle. Eagle sued Expander Americas, alleging breach of contract and promissory estoppel; Bakker sued Global for quantum meruit. The district court dismissed the quantum meruit action for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that Global did not have the requisite minimum contacts with Missouri to be subject to its Long-Arm Statute or to satisfy due process. It was not licensed to do business in the state; it did not advertise within the state; it did not send employees to the state; and no money was received or sent to the state. The court granted Expander Americas summary judgment on the remaining claims, based on the statute of frauds. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. View "Eagle Tech. v. Expander Americas, Inc." on Justia Law

Steve "Wild Thing" Ray wrestled in the Universal Wrestling Federation (UWF) from 1990 to 1994. His matches were filmed. Ray specifically agreed that the films would be "sold and used." Since his retirement from the UWF, Ray has promoted healthcare products and weightlifting supplements. ESPN obtained films of his wrestling matches and re-telecast them throughout North America and Europe without obtaining his "consent to use [his] identity, likeness, name, nick name, or personality to depict him in any way." Ray does not allege that ESPN obtained the films unlawfully. Ray filed suit, asserting, under Missouri state law: invasion of privacy, misappropriation of name, infringement of the right of publicity, and interference with prospective economic advantage. The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal on the grounds of preemption by the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101. Ray's wrestling performances were part of the copyrighted material, and his likenesses could not be detached from the copyrighted performances contained in the films. Ray has not alleged that his name and likeness were used to promote or endorse any type of commercial product. His complaints are based solely on ESPN airing video recordings depicting him in a "work of authorship," which is plainly encompassed by copyright law. View "Ray v. ESPN, Inc." on Justia Law

The Peets sought relief under chapter 13 of the bankruptcy code on December 5, 2011. When they filed their petition for relief, the Peets and Marilynn Peet's parents held title to real property in Missouri as joint tenants, and Marilynn Peet and her father held title to a 2005 Ford half-ton pickup registered in Missouri as joint tenants. On the Peets' motion, the bankruptcy court converted the case to chapter 7 on January 23, 2014. Checkett was appointed the chapter 7 trustee. Marilynn Peet's father passed away on April 14, 2014. Her mother passed away the following day. That summer, the trustee proposed to sell the real property and the pickup. The Peets objected. The bankruptcy court overruled the Peets' objections and authorized the trustee to sell the real property and the pickup. The Eighth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. The filing of a petition for relief does not sever a joint tenancy. The Peets' undivided estate in the real property and Marilyn Peet's undivided estate in the pickup are property of the bankruptcy estate, and the trustee is entitled to the proceeds from their sales. View "Peet v. Checkett" on Justia Law

Madel sued the Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Administration for a response to Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, requests that sought information on oxycodone transactions in Georgia by five private companies. DEA withheld some documents as confidential commercial information. The district court granted summary judgment to DEA, finding it produced all non-exempt information. The court denied declaratory and injunctive relief and attorney fees. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded. Rejecting a claim that DEA did not justify withholding the five documents under FOIA Exemption 4, the court concluded that DEA showed that substantial competitive harm was likely. DEA did not make “barren assertions” that the documents were exempt, but linked each document to identifiable competitive harms. The court remanded for consideration of FOIA’s segregability requirement. DEA did not show “with reasonable specificity why documents withheld pursuant to a valid exemption cannot be further segregated.” Its Declaration does not address how disclosure of the data from, for example, 2007, leads to the proffered substantial competitive harms of a competitor “target[ing] specific markets” or “forecast[ing] potential business of new locations.” View "Madel v. Dep't of Justice" on Justia Law

Meyer pleaded guilty to receipt and possession of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2) and 2252(a)(4)(B). Using websites and a peer-to-peer file-sharing program, Meyer accessed and downloaded more than 300 videos and 700 images of child pornography. The district court sentenced Meyer to 120 months’ imprisonment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the sentence, rejecting an argument that the court erred by relying on information that was not disclosed to him, concerning another child pornography case in which the court had imposed sentence the week before Meyer’s sentencing. At Meyer’s hearing, both attorneys and the judge discussed the earlier case. Meyer did not object to the district court’s statement of reasons or complain that the court impermissibly considered information to which Meyer lacked access. View "United States v. Meyer" on Justia Law

In 2008, Thomas pleaded guilty to distribution of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and was sentenced to 72 months imprisonment and four years supervised release. Thomas began supervised release in April 2013. In January, 2014, his probation officer petitioned for revocation for testing positive for marijuana use and failure to report for drug testing. The district court found a grade C violation but continued the case before sentencing. Two days later, Thomas was arrested for battery, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm, criminal mischief, and fleeing an officer following an incident in a nightclub parking lot. Based on an officer’s testimony, the district court found that Thomas "possessed a firearm and fired it" and "fled." The court declined to make findings about battery, assault, or damage to cars "because that was not the heart of the evidence" and "[t]he other evidence is enough to be a Grade A violation." Thomas did not object. The court calculated a guideline range of 33 to 41 months in custody and sentenced Thomas to 33 months. For the first time on appeal, Thomas argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove a grade A violation. The government agreed that this violation category was incorrect. The Eighth Circuit remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

In 2008, an explosion and fire substantially damaged the Hereford House, a well-known restaurant in downtown Kansas City. Surveillance footage from immediately before the incident showed individuals entering with containers of gasoline and setting an ignition device. The suspects used the security code of a former Hereford House employee to deactivate the security system. Between the employee’s firing and the fire, the same code had been used twice by Anderson, a part owner of the Hereford House, in what appeared to be practice for the arson. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives investigated Anderson, who had infused $380,000 into the business, from cash advances on personal and business credit cards, withdrawals from his mother’s IRA and his 401(k), and a loan from his brother-in-law. In an email, Anderson had stated: “We were unable to pay our payroll taxes of $50,000. Things are not getting any better.” Anderson, Pisciotta, and Sorrentino were convicted and sentenced to 180, 240, and 180 months’ imprisonment, respectively. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that conspiracy to commit arson cannot be a predicate to convictions for the use of fire to commit another felony under 18 U.S.C. 844(h); that the convictions constituted double jeopardy; that the trials should have been severed; and challenging evidentiary rulings. View "United States v. Anderson" on Justia Law