Diana E. Murphy

The case concerned Dana Deegan's federal sentence for second-degree murder after she committed neonaticide by killing her newborn infant. The Eighth Circuit issued an order denying both en banc rehearing and panel rehearing of its prior decision that had upheld the district court's within-guidelines sentence of more than ten years. Dissenting judges contended that the Sentencing Commission had never considered neonaticide when developing the second-degree murder guidelines, that the prosecutor and district court had therefore misapplied the guidelines, and that the resulting sentence was unreasonable and disparate compared with other neonaticide cases; the majority of the court nevertheless declined to rehear the matter.

criminal law

In Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the court issued an order denying a petition for rehearing en banc as well as a petition for panel rehearing. Four judges dissented from the denial of en banc rehearing, contending that the panel decision interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act renders a statutory provision superfluous, overlooks EEOC guidance, and conflicts with the Supreme Court's recognition in US Airways v. Barnett that preferences can serve statutory goals. The underlying dispute concerns the scope of an employer's obligation to provide reassignment as a reasonable accommodation for a disabled employee.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a declaratory judgment action by Northwest Airlines against American Airlines regarding Northwest's hiring of certain American employees, with American counterclaiming for tortious interference with employment contracts, misappropriation of trade secrets in finance and yield management, and copyright infringement of materials like spill tables. The court addressed multiple motions, including Northwest's request for partial reconsideration of a summary judgment denial on misappropriation claims, to strike American's opposition memorandum and evidence obtained after discovery deadlines, for a determination that alleged trade secrets became public on July 7, 1993, and for summary judgment on the copyright claim. It denied the motion to strike, finding that evidence from ORSA obtained via subpoena was not untimely under the circumstances since Northwest had requested related discovery and was aware of the process, and that protective order issues did not warrant exclusion. The court also considered affidavits and documents related to whether materials were publicly disclosed or confidential, while noting that certain copyright registration and impoundment issues were moot or distinct from the trade secret elements.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves an appeal by Northwest Airlines from a magistrate judge's order in a lawsuit against American Airlines concerning discovery disputes and amendments to pleadings in a trade secrets action related to airline yield management systems. The district court reviewed the magistrate's decisions under a clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard and affirmed the order compelling further deposition testimony from Northwest's expert witness Dr. Belobaba on the basis of his expertise and prior statements, as well as the decision permitting American to amend its pleadings to seek punitive damages on claims for misappropriation of trade secrets and tortious interference with employee confidentiality under Minnesota law. The court reversed the imposition of sanctions and costs against Northwest, finding that its counsel's objections during the deposition were based on a good faith interpretation of the prior order and that the line between fact and expert testimony had not been clearly drawn. The core reasoning emphasized American's right to test the expert's knowledge while limiting the scope to avoid converting him into a fact witness, and the existence of a prima facie showing for punitive damages based on evidence of deliberate disregard.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

The case involved the Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians asserting rights under an 1837 treaty to hunt, fish, and gather off-reservation in Minnesota, with the state, counties, and individual landowners challenging those rights and related court rulings on conservation regulations. After a trial resolved many key issues, defendant-intervenors filed post-trial motions seeking reconsideration and amendment of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, a new trial, reinstatement of previously dismissed counterclaims against the United States, and an injunction barring the Band from activities violating state and federal conservation laws. The court denied all motions, explaining that the arguments had already been fully litigated and resolved on the existing record and evidence, no new grounds or evidence justified reconsideration or a new trial, and the movants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, likelihood of success on the merits, or other factors warranting injunctive relief.

civil rightsfederal powerpropertyenvironment

This case was a tax refund action brought by members of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians seeking return of federal income taxes paid on proceeds from logging timber on tribal trust lands under permits issued by the Tribe. The plaintiffs contended that the Treaty of Greenville and related treaties exempted such income from taxation by guaranteeing the Tribe's right to quiet enjoyment of its lands without molestation from the United States. After transfer from the District of Columbia, the court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment on the refund claims. The court reasoned that federal income tax applies to all income unless a treaty or statute provides an express exemption, that the cited treaties contain no definite tax exemption language, and that exemptions cannot be inferred from general treaty provisions or the source of the income.

taxesfederal power

This case concerns the Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians' claim that the 1837 treaty grants them ongoing rights to hunt, fish, and gather in a large area of Minnesota ceded to the United States, and that state natural resource regulations violate those rights. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief confirming the continued existence of the privilege and limiting state enforcement, while the State of Minnesota and intervenors contend the rights were terminated by an 1850 executive order and the 1855 treaty. The court bifurcated the proceedings, conducted a trial on Phase I issues including whether the privilege survives and its general scope, and evaluated extensive historical testimony and evidence under controlling legal precedents to resolve those questions.

civil rightsfederal powerenvironmentproperty

This case concerns federal antitrust claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, along with state-law tortious interference claims, brought by two appraiser associations against the Appraisal Foundation, its sponsors, and trustees for allegedly excluding the plaintiffs from membership in the organization that sets uniform appraisal standards later adopted by Congress in FIRREA. The plaintiffs argued that the Foundation was formed by predecessor groups to control the industry and that its bylaws and sponsorship criteria unfairly barred them while admitting others. Defendants moved for summary judgment, prompting the court to review the Foundation's 1987 incorporation, governance structure, membership categories, and history of admitting or rejecting organizations.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Mga Susu, Inc., operator of an exotic dancing venue in Benton County, Minnesota, challenging the county's development code that classified such establishments as recreational facilities requiring a conditional use permit, which the plaintiff argued imposed an unconstitutional prior restraint under the First Amendment and the Minnesota Constitution. The court had previously issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement and, on cross-motions for summary judgment, addressed whether the zoning provisions were facially invalid due to their application to protected expressive activities like dance performances, theaters, and cinemas. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, permanently enjoining enforcement of the permit requirements against the plaintiff and similar operators, reasoning that the code lacked necessary procedural safeguards such as time limits for permit decisions, allowing indefinite delays that burdened protected speech without adequate standards or prompt resolution mechanisms. The code's broad definitions and standards for permits were found to sweep in First Amendment-protected uses without sufficient limiting construction or established practices to cure the deficiencies.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Northwest Airlines filing a declaratory judgment action against American Airlines concerning Northwest's hiring of 17 former American employees from its finance and yield management departments, all of whom were at-will and had not signed non-compete agreements. American counterclaimed, alleging tortious interference with its employment contracts and misappropriation of trade secrets related to its proprietary DINAMO yield management system, which it claimed provided significant competitive advantages. On Northwest's motion for summary judgment regarding the misappropriation claim under Minnesota law, the court examined whether the information qualified as a trade secret—requiring economic value from not being generally known and reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy—and whether it was acquired through improper means. The court noted that some employees brought documents despite Northwest's precautions, such as instructions not to bring materials and interviews by counsel, and analyzed whether the information was readily ascertainable from public sources or industry literature.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability

This case concerns the Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians' claims that Minnesota's natural resource laws violate their hunting, fishing, and gathering rights reserved under an 1837 treaty with the United States. The Band sought declaratory and injunctive relief to define and protect those rights on ceded lands, including privately owned areas, while the State and intervenors raised defenses such as laches, statute of limitations, Eleventh Amendment immunity, failure to join indispensable parties, and collateral estoppel. The court granted the Band's partial summary judgment motions on several delay-based and immunity defenses, denied the State's cross-motions for dismissal or judgment on those grounds and on the Phase I merits, dismissed counterclaims against the United States, and set the case for trial. The core reasoning relied on federal precedents barring laches and limitations against the United States or tribes in treaty matters, procedural rules on parties and jurisdiction, and the absence of preclusive effect from prior proceedings.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

The case involved a challenge by the Minnesota Milk Producers Association and individual dairy farmers to federal milk marketing orders issued by the USDA for regions east of the Rocky Mountains, claiming they violated the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 by failing to adequately account for supply and demand factors in setting Class I milk prices and differentials. Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief after an administrative process addressing related pricing issues. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant Secretary of Agriculture on cross-motions, holding that the orders complied with the AMAA's requirements for uniform blend pricing and that the Secretary's decision to maintain the existing Class I differential system was a permissible statutory interpretation under the Chevron doctrine. The reasoning centered on the statutory text allowing area-specific terms, the use of the Minnesota-Wisconsin price as a base reflecting national conditions, and the lack of a requirement for a single national supply-demand standard.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case concerned an action by three insurance companies against several others for indemnity and contribution toward a $34 million settlement of an antitrust lawsuit. The underlying suit alleged that the defendants and the Workers' Compensation Insurance Rating Association of Minnesota conspired to prevent rate decreases in workers' compensation insurance from 1979 to 1983. The court addressed defendants' motions to dismiss and cross-motions for summary judgment by examining the history of WCIRAM, its articles of association including indemnification provisions, the transition to a successor organization, and the proceedings in the antitrust litigation to assess liability for the settlement assessments.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a claim by Rhonda Kriss that Sprint Communications Company violated Title VII and the Minnesota Human Rights Act by not transferring her to the New Business Management Group during a 1990 reorganization because of her gender. After an 11-day trial with extensive evidence and witness testimony, the court made findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court determined that Kriss, a high-performing salesperson, was qualified for the position but was not selected due to the significant influence of her former manager Scott Miller, whose input reflected gender bias, rendering Sprint's stated reason pretextual under a mixed-motives analysis. The court concluded that gender was a motivating factor in the decision not to transfer her.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved environmental organizations suing the EPA Administrator under the Clean Water Act and the Administrative Procedure Act to compel action on Minnesota's impaired waters. Plaintiffs challenged the EPA's approval of the state's 1992 list of water quality limited segments (WQLSs) and its failure to develop its own WQLS list and total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for pollutants, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on four counts alleging arbitrary action, failure to perform mandatory duties, and unreasonable delay. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment, ruling that plaintiffs had standing based on concrete injuries to their members' interests in affected waters and that the primary jurisdiction doctrine did not apply because the issues involved statutory duties enforceable through citizen suits rather than specialized agency questions requiring initial administrative resolution.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

Bukaka, Inc., which operates a venue featuring nude dancing in Benton County, Minnesota, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the county's development code that requires a conditional use permit for recreational facilities, including such establishments. The plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the code, arguing it violated First Amendment free speech rights by imposing an unconstitutional prior restraint. The court granted the injunction, reasoning that the code's lack of time limits for permit decisions vested unbridled discretion in officials, making it facially unconstitutional, and that the plaintiff did not need to exhaust administrative remedies for this facial challenge.

free speechcivil rightsbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by a contractors' association and related plaintiffs to an addendum in St. Louis County's bid solicitation for constructing a new jail, which required successful bidders to execute a project labor agreement recognizing a union as the exclusive bargaining representative and adopting union wage and benefit terms. Plaintiffs alleged that the requirement was preempted by ERISA, violated a state bidding statute, and infringed equal protection and due process rights, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief including a preliminary injunction. The court denied the motion for preliminary injunctive relief, concluding that plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their ERISA preemption, statutory, or constitutional claims, that the harm to the county from delay outweighed plaintiffs' interests, and that the public interest in avoiding further costs and disruptions favored allowing the bidding process to proceed.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatorycivil rightsprocedure

The case involved Minnesota construction contractors challenging the state's prevailing wage statute and related rules, alleging that ERISA preempts the law because it defines prevailing wages to include contributions for health, welfare, pension, and other benefits, while also exempting certain registered apprenticeship programs; the complaint raised additional claims under the NLRA, due process, contract clauses, and state law authority. The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the ERISA preemption issue. It reasoned that the statute refers only to benefits, not to ERISA-regulated plans, and thus is not expressly preempted under Supreme Court precedents distinguishing the two. The court further held that the apprenticeship provisions are saved from preemption by ERISA's general savings clause to avoid impairing the cooperative federal-state framework under the Fitzgerald Act.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

In this case, plaintiffs sued Rent-A-Center and related companies, claiming that the company's standard rent-to-own contracts for consumer goods qualify as consumer credit sales under the Minnesota Consumer Credit Sales Act and violate multiple state and federal consumer protection, disclosure, and racketeering statutes. Plaintiffs sought class certification for all Minnesota customers who entered similar contracts after August 1, 1990, along with partial summary judgment on the applicability of the CCSA. The court certified a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for declaratory and injunctive relief claims and under 23(b)(3) for damages claims, finding that numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements were met on the existing record. It also granted summary judgment, holding that the contracts are consumer credit sales for all purposes under Minn. Stat. §§ 325G.15 and .16 because they allow customers to acquire ownership through installment payments without conflicting with the separate Rental Purchase Agreement Act.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a declaratory judgment action brought by Farmers Union Agency and related companies against insurance agent Earl Butenhoff. The plaintiffs sought a ruling that Minnesota Statute § 60A.177, which creates a board to review involuntary terminations of qualifying insurance agents, does not apply retroactively to contracts formed before its enactment and is unconstitutional as applied to those pre-existing agreements. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. It reasoned that the statute functions as an alternative dispute resolution process rather than altering vested contractual rights, that no unconstitutional impairment of contract had been shown, and that the plaintiffs' retroactivity and constitutional arguments were premature without evidence that the board would override the contract terms.

business & regulatoryprocedure