Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.
Decision levers
AI-measured from their own opinions — each lever cites its cases
PurposivismTextualism
Dissent in [1] repeatedly invokes 'plain language' and 'text and history' of 18 U.S.C. § 2 to reject panel's status-element requirement. United States v. Graham ↗
Willing to revisit precedentStrong stare decisis
Dissent in [1] seeks en banc rehearing to overturn panel's statutory holding rather than defer to it. United States v. Graham ↗
Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
The case involved Donald Bain, who pleaded guilty to one count of receiving and distributing child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography after authorities seized hundreds of images from his computers. The district court calculated a guidelines range of 210 to 262 months and imposed a sentence of 210 months, rejecting Bain's request for the statutory minimum of 60 months. Bain appealed, arguing that the district court committed procedural error by treating the guidelines as presumptively reasonable and requiring extraordinary circumstances for a variance, contrary to Supreme Court precedent. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the sentence, concluding that the district court did not commit reversible procedural error in applying the guidelines and considering the statutory sentencing factors.
The case concerns whether an indictment for aiding and abetting a murder under the Indian Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153, must allege that the aider and abettor shares the status element of being Indian. A panel of the Eighth Circuit held that the indictment against Graham was defective because it alleged only that the principal (Looking Cloud) was Indian, without alleging Indian status for Graham or the victim. In this dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc, the judge argued that 18 U.S.C. § 2 permits conviction of aiders and abettors regardless of status elements, citing the statute's plain text applying to all federal offenses, its 1951 amendment history as explained in Standefer v. United States, and consistent rulings from the Third and Sixth Circuits.
In this diversity case, Dr. Martin Hinz and his company sued Neuroscience, Inc. and Gottfried Kellermann for breach of a 2003 settlement agreement that required Kellermann to permanently discontinue selling certain amino acid supplement products and using related trademarks and formulations. A jury found a breach and awarded nearly $2 million in lost-profit damages, but the district court granted judgment as a matter of law reversing the damages award on the ground that Hinz had not provided a reasonable basis for calculating them. The district court also denied Hinz's requests for a permanent injunction, interest, and attorney fees, and it had allowed parol evidence to interpret the ambiguous contract terms. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings on damages, the denial of equitable and fee relief, and related procedural and evidentiary issues, while noting that Hinz's failure to prove damages under Minnesota law meant he did not prevail for purposes of the fee-shifting provision.
The case involved Donald Bain's guilty plea to federal charges of receiving, distributing, and possessing child pornography, followed by his appeal of a 210-month sentence imposed at the bottom of the advisory guidelines range. The district court calculated the range after applying multiple enhancements and considered the § 3553(a) factors but referenced the guidelines as presumptively reasonable and declined to grant a variance. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the sentence, concluding that any procedural issues under Rita and Gall did not require reversal under the applicable standard of review and that the sentence was substantively reasonable.
The case involved Missouri prison officials' denial of an inmate's request for a sweat lodge to practice his Native American faith at a maximum-security facility, where the inmate was serving life without parole for second-degree murder. The inmate sued under RLUIPA, alleging the denial substantially burdened his religious exercise. The district court granted summary judgment to the officials, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed on appeal. The court reasoned that the denial furthered compelling interests in institutional safety and security, given risks such as concealment of weapons or escape attempts within the structure, and that it was the least restrictive means available based on facility-specific constraints and precedent like Hamilton v. Schriro.
This case arose from a lawsuit by investors in UCAP, a mortgage lending company, against former directors and the company's auditor, alleging fraud, securities law violations, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract based on misrepresentations about UCAP's financial condition; some claims were dismissed while others, including a breach of fiduciary duty claim and counterclaims, remained pending. The district court granted a Rule 54(b) motion to enter partial final judgment on the dismissed claims, allowing an immediate appeal. The Eighth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction because the district court abused its discretion in certifying the partial judgment, as the dismissed and pending claims arose from the same factual allegations, creating a risk of piecemeal appeals, and there was no demonstrated hardship or injustice from delaying review until all issues could be resolved together.
business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability
Affiliations
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit — appointed by George W. Bush
