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

The Eighth Circuit consolidated appeals from district court decisions granting defendants summary judgment in cases under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against law enforcement officials and municipalities. The claims related to the seizure of firearms, which were kept by the police for up to two years, and the arrests and prosecutions of plaintiffs, as to whom charges were ultimately dismissed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding that there was a reasonable basis for retention of the firearms in both cases and that officers were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions in connection with the arrests and searches. View "Rodgers v. Knight" on Justia Law

In 2007, while operating a truck, Yelder, an employee of Yelder-N-Son Trucking, collided with a Tri-National truck, causing extensive property damage. Tri-National filed a claim with its insurer, Harco, which paid $91,100 and retained a subrogation interest. Yelder was insured by Canal with an MCS-90 endorsement, mandated by the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, 94 Stat. 793. In 2010, Canal sought a declaratory judgment against the Yelder defendants and Harco. An Alabama court entered default judgment against the Yelder defendants only, stating Canal had no duty to defend or indemnify them under the Canal policy. The court made no declaration about whether the MCS-90 endorsement requires a tortfeasor’s insurer to compensate an injured party when the injured party has already been compensated by its own insurer. Tri-National then sued the Yelders in Missouri and obtained a $91,100 default judgment. Tri-National sought equitable garnishment against Canal, apparently on behalf of Harco. Canal removed the action to the federal district court, which granted Tri-National’s motion. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the MCS-90 does require such compensation. The circumstance of Tri-National carrying its own insurance did not absolve Canal of its obligations under the endorsement View "Tri-National, Inc. v. Canal Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The Department of Labor (DOL) investigated a complaint that ActionLink, a marketing company, had misclassified some of its employees as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and failed to pay overtime compensation. During the investigation, ActionLink agreed to reclassify the employees as non-exempt and to pay them their missing back wages. It sent the employees checks with a disclaimer stating that the checks represented "full payment … wages earned, including minimum wage and overtime, up to the date of the check." Several employees cashed the checks; others did not. Some then sued ActionLink, claiming that they were entitled to additional pay under the FLSA. The district court granted the employees summary judgment and declared them non-exempt. ActionLink then moved for summary judgment against the employees who had cashed the back-wages checks, claiming that they had waived their rights for additional remuneration under 29 U.S.C. 216(b). The district court agreed and dismissed the cases. The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, agreeing that the employees are non-exempt, but concluded the release language on the checks was insufficient to notify employees of the consequences of cashing the checks. The employees therefore did not waive their FLSA claims by cashing the checks. View "Adams v. ActionLink, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2006, Sletten, an orthodontist practicing in Minnesota and Wisconsin, bought general liability and personal injury liability insurance from Continental through Wells Fargo. The next year, Sletten formed S&B, which opened an office in Hudson, Wisconsin and employed Brettin to practice orthodontics there. Sletten notified Wells Fargo that he had opened the Hudson office and requested coverage for the location. Wells Fargo added the Hudson office as an additional insured location but never added S&B as a named insured. In 2012, St. Croix Dental and Wolff sued, that Brettin, acting “on behalf of and with the knowledge and consent of” S&B, used his neighbor’s wireless network to post defamatory comments about St. Croix to the Internet. Brettin allegedly posed as a patient of St. Croix and criticized Wolff’s orthodontia. St. Croix alleged defamation and libel, civil conspiracy, and unfair competition. Continental refused to defend because the policy did not identify S&B as a named insured. S&B and Sletten then sued Continental and Wells Fargo. The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding that the policy excluded coverage for acts done with the intent to injure; every claim pleaded that S&B and Brettin acted with the intent to injure. View "Sletten & Brettin Orthodontics, LLC v. Cont'l Cas. Co." on Justia Law

Debtors filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. The Credit Union sought Relief from Stay regarding a 2008 Chrysler van, which had been owned by Debtor’s father (Neale), but was in the Debtors’ possession. The van’s Certificate of Title lists Neale as the sole owner, but Neale had died and Debtor was the sole designee under his will, which was submitted to the court. The Bankruptcy Court found that Debtor had at least an equitable interest in the van, which interest was property of the estate, and granted the Motion. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the Credit Union did not have a perfected security interest in the van, or that the loan could not be enforced against Debtors. The interest was evidenced by a Security Agreement signed by Neale; the lien was noted on the Certificate of Title, which issued in Texas. Texas law provides that, except for vehicles held as inventory, a person may perfect a security interest in a motor vehicle by recording the security interest on the certificate of title. The fact that Neale is now deceased, and that the Debtors may not be personally liable on the loan, does not affect the Credit Union’s security interest in the van. View "Gess v. Randolph Brooks Credit Union" on Justia Law

Debtors filed a petition for relief under chapter 11 in 1999. Debtors proposed several plans of reorganization, but none were confirmed. On the Trustee's motion, the bankruptcy court dismissed Debtors' case in 2004. Debtors did not appeal and the case was closed on the bankruptcy clerk's docket in 2005. In 2014, Debtors moved to reopen their case "to pursue Confirmation of their current Plan[.]" The Trustee and Agrifinance objected, and, without first holding a hearing, the bankruptcy court entered a text order denying Debtors' motion. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. There is no requirement in 11 U.S.C. 350 that the court provide a hearing on a motion to reopen and nothing would have been gained by holding a hearing. View "Bowman v. Casamatta" on Justia Law

Munz pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 846. The Sentencing Guidelines advisory range for his crime was 46 to 57 months' imprisonment. Munz requested a downward variance based in part on a proposed amendment to the Drug Quantity Table, Guidelines 2D1.1, which, if applied to Munz, would result in a two-level reduction in Munz's total offense level. Munz also emphasized, among other things, that he had no criminal record, a generally good work history, and a difficult childhood. The court considered Munz's background, but noted that he had twice tested positive for marijuana use during his pretrial release, denied using marijuana despite the positive test results, and had a history of using both marijuana and methamphetamine. In light of these and the other sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), the court declined to vary below the Guidelines range and sentenced him to 46 months in prison,the bottom of the Guidelines range. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Munz" on Justia Law

Corey Turner, Donald Turner, and Antonio Turner were among the subjects of a 2010 investigation of cocaine distribution by the Drug Enforcement Administration and the police department in Sikeston, Missouri. In 2011, 14 people were charged in a 21-count indictment with conspiracy to distribute cocaine; the remaining charges were substantive drug charges against some of the defendants. Most of the defendants pleaded guilty, with some entering into cooperation agreements with the government. Corey, Donald, and Antonio went to trial and were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and of all substantive drug charges. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, upholding denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of wiretaps; admission of a co-conspirator’s lay-opinion testimony about the meaning of certain drug-related terms used in intercepted phone calls; introduction of prior convictions; and admission of a video of Antonio’s arrest. View "United States v. Turner" on Justia Law

Polk County, Arkansas, Sheriff’s Officers were attempting to locate a rural address during unrelated investigation and decided to contact neighbors for assistance. The officers but did not enter property later identified as Bearden’s because of a closed driveway gate. They drove down another driveway through a wooded area. Speaking to the owner, White, they noticed a shop building and smelled a strong odor of green marijuana. Leaving, the officers noticed surveillance cameras. They returned to White’s property later that day to investigate the “overwhelming” smell. They encountered Bearden on the property. A search of Bearden’s property revealed over 800 marijuana plants in the shed. On White’s property, the officers found hundreds of marijuana plants in the shop building. The trial court suppressed statements Bearden made before he was Mirandized but found that White’s driveway gate was open both times the officers arrived. Bearden entered a conditional guilty plea to conspiracy to manufacture 1,000 or more marijuana plants, 21 U.S.C. 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A), and possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A). The Eighth Circuit upheld denial of the motion to suppress and Bearden’s sentence of 180 months, rejecting arguments that burglary and escape should not count as “crimes of violence.” View "United States v. Bearden" on Justia Law

Clark filmed himself touching and attempting to penetrate the vagina and anus of a seven-year-old girl with his penis. The child reported Clark's conduct and Clark ultimately pleaded guilty to producing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2251(a) and (b). The presentence investigation report recommended a two-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2G2.1(b)(2)(A) because the offense involved "sexual contact” and recommended a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2G2.1(b)(4) because the offense involved "material that portrays sadistic or masochistic conduct." Clark objected, asserting impermissible double counting. The district court disagreed, however, finding that "[u]nlike the enhancement for sadistic or violent conduct, the 'sexual contact' enhancement does not require penetration, nor even attempted penetration." The Guidelines' range for Clark's crime was 360 months to life imprisonment. The district court sentenced Clark to only 276 months' imprisonment, stating that the sentence was "about the offense, [the] victim and [his] prior history." The Eighth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law