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

Plaintiff, a pathologist, filed suit against Avera, alleging that Avera violated federal and state laws for terminating a Services Agreement. Plaintiff filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.; the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2617 et seq.; and the South Dakota Human Relations Act (SDHRA), S.D. Codified Laws 20-13-1 et seq. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing all of plaintiff's claims because plaintiff was an independent contractor of St. Luke's Hospital under his Services Agreement and not an employee.View "Alexander v. Avera St. Luke's Hospital" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the bankruptcy court's orders granting a motion to dismiss and denying his motion for retroactive approval to prosecute a derivative action complaint. The panel concluded that, based upon the record and applicable legal standards, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying derivative standing where there is no evidence that the trustee refused to undertake avoidance of the transfer, rather, he merely responded that he would need more information. Further, the bankruptcy court identified the complexity of the matters, including a three step process before any recovery could even be potentially available to the bankruptcy estate; the risks associated with litigation; and the expense of litigation in finding that the trustee was justified in his refusal to pursue avoidance of the partial assignment. These findings conform to the cost benefit analysis mandated by the law in this Circuit. The panel rejected plaintiff's remaining arguments and affirmed the bankruptcy court's orders.View "Larson, III v. Foster, et al." on Justia Law

The trustee appealed from the bankruptcy court's order overruling the trustee's objection to debtor's claimed exemption in the portion of his state income tax refund which came from the Minnesota Education Credit as "government assistance based on need" under section 550.37, subd. 14 of the Minnesota Statutes. The panel concluded that the Education Credit is a direct payment or subsidy to address the basic economic needs of low-income recipients in obtaining such quality education for their children where the Education Credit is available only to individuals with relatively low income, is a refundable credit, and the credit is, in large part, intended to assist low-income individuals in obtaining quality education for their children. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's order permitting debtor's claimed exemption.View "Christians v. Dmitruk" on Justia Law

Defendants Henley, Smith, Elkins, Fry, Robinson, and Peteet pled guilty to racketeering conspiracy and various counts of violent crime in aid of racketeering in connection with their involvement in a motorcycle gang. Defendants appealed on numerous grounds. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants of the racketeering conspiracy and various substantive counts; the judge sitting in the Eastern District of Missouri had jurisdiction to authorize a wiretap of a cell phone located in Illinois; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting recorded conversations; the district court did not abuse its discretion by not submitting the case with a special verdict form requiring that the jury unanimously find which predicate acts were attributable to any one of the defendants; the omission of the "substantial step" language in the jury instructions did not affect Robinson's substantial rights; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of an uncharged crime where it was relevant to establish both the continuity of the conspiracy and the common purpose underlying Robinson's acts; Smith failed to show that the district court erred by failing to sever his case; the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in finding an affidavit which claimed that another person besides Peteet shot the victim at Bennigan's where it was unreliable and inadmissible; the district court did not plainly err in excluding the testimony of a witness's wife since Peteet failed to lay an evidentiary foundation; and the evidence supported the district court's application of the leadership enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1 to Peteet's sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Henley" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the revocation of his supervised release and resulting 60-month commitment to the BOP. The court affirmed, concluding that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable considering the reasons given by the district court. The district court considered relevant sentencing factors before imposing the sentence and reminded defendant of what he had agreed to in exchange for the opportunity to return to the residential re-entry center in lieu of prison, and it expressed the importance of maintaining respect for the court's directives generally. Further, the district court noted that defendant had been difficult to supervise, and that he portrayed an attitude almost like the rules didn't apply to him.View "United States v. Hum" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for failing to register as a sex offender under 18 U.S.C. 2250(a). In 2006, Congress enacted the Sex Offender Registration Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. 16901-16991. In 2007, the Attorney General promulgated an Interim Rule that made registration requirements applicable to all pre-Act offenders without establishing a period for pre-promulgation notice and comment and bypassed the 30-day publication requirement. Defendant argued that the Attorney General lacked good cause and thereby violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. The court joined the Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits and found that the Attorney General's stated reasons for finding good cause to bypass the 30-day advance-publication and notice-and-comment requirements were insufficient. Because the Attorney General lacked good cause to waive the procedural requirements of notice and comment when promulgating the Interim Rule, and this procedural error prejudiced defendant, SORNA did not apply to defendant in 2007. Therefore, his conviction for failing to register is invalid. The court did not address defendant's remaining argument that SORNA violates the nondelegation doctrine. The court reversed and remanded for the district court to vacate the conviction. View "United States v. Brewer" on Justia Law

Taxpayers petitioned the Tax Court, challenging the Commission's notices of deficiency regarding their farmhouse. The Tax Court denied the petition, disallowing $42,694 in claimed deductions because taxpayers failed to prove that the farmhouse expenses were tied to a real estate property rental business for purposes of 26 U.S.C. 162, or related to property held for the production of income within the meaning of IRC 212. The court affirmed the judgment of the Tax Court.View "Meinhardt v. CIR" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 two years and four months after his claims related to a traffic stop arose. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action as time barred under Iowa's two-year statute of limitations governing personal injury claims. The tolling provision plaintiff relied on comes from the Iowa Tort Claims Act, Iowa Code Ch. 669, not from the personal injury statute, and it has no application in this case.View "DeVries v. Driesen, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession and appealed his sentence. The district court concluded that defendant's prior criminal history, including a conviction for a 1992 Kansas burglary, qualified him as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). The court concluded that the district court erred in determining that the Kansas burglary conviction qualified as a predicate offense under the ACCA and the district court lacked sufficient information upon which to find that defendant pleaded guilty to generic burglary, a qualifying violent felony for purposes of the ACCA. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.View "United States v. Thornton" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of children and appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized under a search warrant from his room at the YMCA camp. The court agreed with the district court that the information contained in the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause to issue the warrant to search defendant's room at camp where, according to the affidavit, one of the alleged victims identified himself to officers and voluntarily provided a detailed statement regarding how defendant approached him and the attempted sexual abuse; the identity of the victims were known to law enforcement at the time the affidavit was prepared; the affidavit also included similar information that a detective had received from a County Children's Division employee; and some of the information provided by the victims was corroborated by the detective's independent investigation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. O'Dell" on Justia Law