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

Plaintiff filed suit against a semi-truck driver and his company for injuries plaintiff sustained in a traffic accident. The jury returned a verdict assigning no fault to either party and plaintiff appealed. The court concluded that, given the district court's pre-trial ruling that the accident report was inadmissible, defendants should not have been allowed to introduce the officer's opinions and conclusions from the accident report. The introduction of the investigating officer's opinions and conclusions was improper and had a substantial influence on the jury's verdict. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Valedez v. Watkins Motor Lines, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought coverage from Farm Bureau for flood damage to her home but failed to submit the one-page proof of loss form required by the federal standard flood insurance policy. The court concluded that plaintiff's failure to complete and submit the form precluded coverage as a matter of federal statutory, regulatory, and common law. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Farm Bureau. The court declined to tax Farm Bureau's costs against plaintiff. View "Stoner v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins." on Justia Law

After the denial of his flood insurance claim, plaintiff filed suit against Farm Bureau alleging a state bad faith claim and federal breach of contract. The court held that the district court committed reversible legal error by excusing plaintiff from complying with the standard flood insurance policy's (SFIP) proof of loss requirement. Even if Farm Bureau wished to waive the proof of loss, FEMA has not authorized waiver in this case. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Farm Bureau. View "McCarty v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co." on Justia Law

United Fire sought a declaratory judgment that an insurance policy it issued to Rose did not provide coverage to Wayne Rockett, a supervisory level employee of Rose. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to United Fire, concluding that the term "directors" in the insurance policy unambiguously provided coverage only to Rose's actual board of directors and not to employees such as Rockett. View "United Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to receipt of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court properly applied the cross reference to U.S.S.G. 2G2.1 and its related sentencing enhancements based on defendant's admission that he photographed himself having sexual intercourse with his eleven year old nephew; the district court did not clearly err in finding that the victim had been twelve years of age at the time of the sexual offense so as to apply the section 2G2.1(b)(1)(A) enhancement; and the district court reasonably applied the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in sentencing defendant to the guidelines range of twenty years imprisonment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Zayas" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for smuggling firearms out of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 554. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in submitting a jury instruction on deliberate indifference. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Galimah" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, three counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base; and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the information contained in the search warrant application provided sufficient probable cause to issue a warrant to search defendant's residence and, therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant waived his claim that the district court abused its discretion when it did not allow his attorney additional time to review Jencks materials. Finally, there was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdicts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Duke" on Justia Law

Defendant walked away from a prison camp at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) and a federal magistrate judge issued a warrant for his arrest. Defendant pled guilty to one count of escape of a prisoner in custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. 751(a). The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's request for a four-level reduction to his base offense level under U.S.S.G. 2P1.1(b)(3) where the reduction does not apply to defendants who escape from a prison camp because prison camps are not similar to the institutions described by section 2P1.1(b)(3). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Batts" on Justia Law

After enXco did not obtain a permit by a date certain, thus failing to satisfy a condition precedent to a contract concerning the construction of a wind-energy project, NSP terminated the contract. enXco filed suit against NSP for breach of contract. On appeal, enXco challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment for NSP. Assuming, without deciding, that Minnesota courts would apply the doctrine of temporary impracticability to conditions precedent for use as a sword, the court concluded that the doctrine has no application on these facts. Therefore, the district court correctly declined to apply the doctrine of temporary impracticability. The court declined to apply the doctrine of disproportionate forfeiture and left the parties to their bargain. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "enXco Dev. Corp. v. Northern States Power Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, Novo, and former superivisor at Novo, alleging that Novo terminated her in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. The court concluded that plaintiff could not establish that defendants acted with discriminatory animus against plaintiff for taking FMLA leave. Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the court concluded that plaintiff could not demonstrate pretext; plaintiff did not adduce enough evidence to rebut Novo's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for her termination; and, therefore, plaintiff has not produced sufficient probative evidence that her termination was the result of unlawful FMLA retaliation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. View "Ebersole v. Novo Nordisk, Inc., et al." on Justia Law