William Jay Riley

This case involved attorney Elizabeth Unger Carlyle, appointed under the Criminal Justice Act to represent a death row inmate, who sought additional reimbursement from the district court for work on state clemency proceedings beyond the amounts initially approved. The district court granted partial relief, raising the hourly rate and increasing the total cap to $7,000 while denying the full requested budget of over $58,000. Carlyle appealed to the Eighth Circuit Chief Judge, who dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that decisions on CJA fee reimbursements are administrative rather than judicial in nature, and appellate courts generally lack authority to review them except in narrow circumstances such as complete neglect of duty by the district court.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a judicial misconduct complaint filed by a complainant against twenty-seven Article III judges in the Eighth Circuit, including all active circuit judges, alleging that the judges abused their discretion by participating in a racially discriminatory system that disadvantaged African American and prisoner litigants in prior cases. The Judicial Council referred the matter to Chief Judge Riley to decide on the merits rather than transferring it to another circuit. The court dismissed the complaint, finding the allegations frivolous and unsupported by evidence under 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(iii) and Judicial Conference rules, as they consisted of conclusory claims of bias without factual basis and largely concerned the merits of underlying decisions reviewable only on appeal. The opinion noted that naming every judge effectively invoked a rule of necessity allowing resolution by the chief judge when the claims were patently insubstantial.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves a judicial misconduct complaint filed by a civil litigant against the U.S. district judge who dismissed his lawsuit. The complainant alleged a conflict of interest involving the judge's law clerk, plagiarism in the dismissal order, and a conspiracy among court officers. The Judicial Council of the Eighth Circuit dismissed the complaint, holding that the allegations primarily concerned the merits of the judge's rulings rather than misconduct, which are not proper subjects for such complaints under the rules. The court further found no evidence supporting the claims of impropriety or plagiarism beyond the judge's permissible use of party briefs in drafting the order.

procedure

This case involved two defendants, Colin Spotted Elk and Flint Thomas Red Feather, who were convicted as members of a drug trafficking conspiracy operating on the Pine Ridge Oglala Sioux reservation in South Dakota. After an earlier appeal led to partial reversal and remand for resentencing, the defendants challenged their new sentences on procedural grounds. Spotted Elk argued that the district court improperly applied a dangerous weapon sentencing enhancement under the guidelines, while Red Feather contested the court's calculation of his relevant conduct for determining the quantity of cocaine attributable to him. The Eighth Circuit affirmed both sentences, holding that the district court had properly applied the guidelines by distinguishing individual relevant conduct from the full scope of the conspiracy and by finding that ongoing sales at Red Feather's prior rate were reasonably foreseeable. The court concluded that there was no clear error in the factual findings supporting the sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Minch family suing the Buffalo-Red River Watershed District and its officers for trespass, nuisance, and wrongful death after the district cleaned out a ditch adjacent to their farmland pursuant to a state court order. The federal district court dismissed the claims, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and res judicata, and also failed to state valid causes of action. The court reasoned that the state court order broadly authorized the clean-out operations, which did not constitute trespass, the alleged actions did not interfere with the use and enjoyment of the land for nuisance purposes, and there was no breach of duty for the wrongful death claim.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Randolph Lone Fight, who was convicted of three counts of involuntary manslaughter after causing a head-on collision while driving intoxicated, resulting in the deaths of three people. He pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement, and the advisory sentencing guidelines recommended a range of 77 to 96 months' imprisonment. The district court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 231 months, and Lone Fight appealed the decision to run the sentences consecutively rather than concurrently. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that the district court properly considered the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the defendant's extensive criminal history, the multiple deaths caused, and the need to protect the public and deter future offenses, rather than being bound by the guidelines' grouping provisions.

criminal law

The case involved Virgil Shelton suing Kennedy Funding, Inc. (KFI) for breach of contract and fraud arising from KFI's bridge loan to the buyer of Shelton's Arkansas cemetery, which was encumbered by Shelton's prior mortgage and note with ongoing payment obligations of uncertain duration. A jury awarded Shelton $675,000 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the compensatory award on the contract claim but reversed the punitive damages on the fraud claim, remanding with instructions to reduce the judgment to $675,000. The court reasoned that the evidence supported breach and compensatory damages but did not justify punitives, while addressing evidentiary and mitigation issues without finding reversible error affecting substantial rights.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

This case involves class-action claims by consumers alleging that Aurora Organic Dairy and retailers including Costco, Safeway, Target, Wild Oats, and Wal-Mart engaged in deceptive advertising and marketing of organic milk products by misrepresenting how cows were raised and fed, including claims that cows were not pastured and that milk was antibiotic- and hormone-free. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of claims against certifier Quality Assurance International and those directly challenging Aurora's organic certification under federal law or use of OFPA terms. It reversed the dismissal of the remaining state-law deceptive trade practices claims against Aurora and the listed retailers, holding that the allegations of knowing misrepresentations and omissions sufficiently stated plausible causes of action at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The court remanded for further proceedings on preemption, motions to strike or amend, and the surviving claims.

business & regulatory

Darryl Hurd appealed the denial of his application for supplemental security income benefits, which was based on an administrative law judge's determination that he was not disabled despite his claims of paranoid schizophrenia, depression, back pain, and leg spasms. The district court affirmed the ALJ's decision. Hurd argued on appeal that the Commissioner violated his procedural due process rights by not providing him a post-hearing letter the ALJ sent to his treating psychiatrist requesting additional information, or alternatively that the action violated agency regulations. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the denial was supported by substantial evidence, that the ALJ properly gave little weight to the treating physician's unsupported opinion, and that no due process or regulatory violation occurred because no new evidence was received.

procedurehealthcarefederal power

Scottsdale Insurance Company issued a commercial general liability policy to Universal Crop Protection Alliance (UCPA) that included a pollution exclusion for property damage arising from the discharge or migration of pollutants, defined to include chemicals. After Arkansas cotton farmers sued UCPA alleging that its herbicide containing 2,4-D drifted and damaged their crops, Scottsdale filed this declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that it had no duty to defend or indemnify UCPA. The district court granted summary judgment to Scottsdale, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that Minnesota law rendered the exclusion unambiguous and applicable to the herbicide migration claims under either off-target drift or relofting theories. The court rejected UCPA's challenges to jurisdiction and to the breadth of the exclusion's application.

business & regulatoryenvironmenttorts & liability

Melinda Fisher sued Wal-Mart and two police officers after an incident in which she presented counterfeit money orders at a Wal-Mart store, leading to her arrest on suspicion of attempting to pass fraudulent instruments. She asserted state-law claims for false imprisonment, slander, and malicious prosecution against Wal-Mart, plus a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for unlawful arrest against the officers. The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants and awarded attorneys' fees to the officers on the ground that the § 1983 claim was groundless. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that Wal-Mart employees neither detained nor defamed Fisher and did not initiate prosecution with malice, that the officers acted on probable cause or with qualified immunity, and that the fee award was within the district court's discretion.

criminal lawcivil rightstorts & liability

This case involved a dispute over life insurance proceeds under an ERISA-governed group policy issued to an employer. Floyd Knighton shot and killed his wife Debra, leading to his disqualification as a beneficiary under Arkansas's slayer rule after a jury found he intentionally caused her death. The estate's administrator sued Minnesota Life after it refused to pay the benefits, arguing that only Floyd held an interest in the policy. The district court ruled that Debra possessed an interest in the policy, entitling the estate to the proceeds, and awarded attorneys' fees and costs to the estate. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the award of proceeds to the estate but reversed in part on the fee award, remanding for a determination of the portion attributable solely to Minnesota Life rather than to the proceedings against Floyd.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

Jose Favio Molina Jerez, a Guatemalan national, petitioned for review of a Department of Homeland Security order reinstating his prior deportation after multiple illegal entries into the United States, a 1989 deportation order that became final, and a long-pending asylum application filed in 1992. The Eighth Circuit dismissed the petition in part and denied it in part. The court held that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) provisions governing reinstatement of removal applied to Molina without impermissible retroactive effect on his rights, as he lacked a vested claim to pre-IIRIRA forms of relief such as suspension of deportation.

immigration

In United States v. Bowie, Marquise Laguan Bowie and Joe Darrell Edwards, Jr., along with other members of the Rolling Thirties Bloods gang, were charged in federal court with conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine and conspiracy to possess firearms in relation to drug trafficking, spanning from 1990 to 2007. Bowie pleaded guilty to the drug conspiracy charge and was sentenced to 175 months in prison, while Edwards was convicted after a bench trial on both counts and received a 206-month sentence. On appeal to the Eighth Circuit, the defendants raised issues including withdrawal of Bowie's plea, ineffective assistance of counsel, evidentiary rulings, and the district court's handling of arguments about crack versus powder cocaine sentencing disparities. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the district court committed no reversible error in its proceedings or sentencing decisions.

criminal lawguns

The case involved the United States suing insurance agent Russell T. Hawley and his company for allegedly violating the False Claims Act and committing common-law fraud by submitting insurance applications and reports for ineligible farmers, leading to improper government reimbursements on crop insurance claims. The district court granted summary judgment to Hawley, but the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Hawley had reason to expect that the false representations about farmers' eligibility would reach the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and influence its decisions to reimburse the private insurer. The court's reasoning centered on Hawley's experience in the crop insurance industry, which could allow a jury to infer his knowledge that ineligible claims would result in federal payments under the reinsurance agreement.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved union trustees and a local union suing Theresa Baggett individually to recover allegedly unpaid contributions to employee health and pension plans under a collective bargaining agreement, after her company Baggett Masonry, Inc. stopped making payments. The plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against Baggett personally, styled as doing business as the company, but she appealed arguing the complaint did not support individual liability. The Eighth Circuit vacated the default judgment, holding that the complaint failed to state a claim because the attached agreement showed Baggett signed only in her corporate capacity as president, with no allegations explaining why she should be held personally liable or that the corporation had been dissolved. The court reasoned that the "d/b/a" styling and general allegation that she operated a construction company did not overcome the contract's terms or satisfy pleading requirements under federal rules.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Gregg Allen Pickar, who was convicted by a jury of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) after entering a bank, demanding money from a teller while keeping his hand in his pocket, and fleeing with over one thousand dollars. Pickar appealed his conviction on grounds including insufficient evidence to prove the elements of the offense, an improper jury instruction, the district court's questioning of a witness, and admission of show-up identification evidence obtained shortly after the robbery. He also challenged his 210-month sentence, claiming the district court erred in classifying him as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines based on prior convictions. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient, the identification reliable under the totality of circumstances, and no other trial errors occurred, but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because fleeing a police officer in a vehicle under Minnesota law does not qualify as a crime of violence for career-offender purposes.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Alvin Jackson, an Arkansas death-row inmate, claiming he is mentally retarded and that his execution would violate the Eighth Amendment per Atkins v. Virginia. After an earlier remand, the district court granted summary judgment to the state on the merits of the Atkins claim without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Eighth Circuit reversed that decision, vacated the summary judgment, and remanded for an Atkins hearing, holding that Jackson's petition allegations created a genuine issue of material fact on the three prongs of mental retardation under Arkansas law (subaverage intellectual functioning, deficits in adaptive functioning, and manifestation before age 18), as required by precedents like Simpson v. Norris and Sasser v. Norris.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal power

Melinda Torres sued Bayer Corporation in Texas state court over injuries she allegedly suffered from the drug Baycol, claiming negligence and strict products liability; Bayer removed the case to federal court in Minnesota, where it was transferred to multidistrict litigation. After Torres died in 2007, her daughters moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a) to substitute as plaintiffs, submitting affidavits of heirship, birth certificates, and proof that they were Torres's sole heirs and that no probate was needed. The district court denied the motion twice, finding insufficient evidence under California law that the daughters were proper successors in interest because they had not affirmatively shown Torres had no other heirs or addressed her marital status. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that Rule 25(a)(1) permits substitution by a decedent's successors and that California Code of Civil Procedure sections define successors as estate beneficiaries, so the district court must hold an evidentiary hearing to assess whether the daughters qualify under state law and federal procedural standards applied liberally to allow substitution.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Dr. Antoine Khoury, a cardiologist, who received residual disability benefits under his employer's ERISA-governed long-term disability policy issued by ReliaStar Life Insurance Company but disputed the amount calculated. Khoury argued that his total earnings, including extra pay for additional on-call shifts beyond the base schedule, should be used to determine his "basic monthly earnings," while ReliaStar excluded those amounts as overtime. The district court granted summary judgment to ReliaStar, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that ReliaStar's interpretation of the policy was reasonable under the abuse-of-discretion standard. The court applied the Finley factors and found the exclusion consistent with the policy language, which expressly omitted overtime pay, and aligned with a common dictionary definition of overtime as extra compensation for extra hours worked.

labor & employmenthealthcare