Minden v. Atain Specialty Ins. Co.

Opinion handed down May 26, 2015

Link to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion

After leaving a friend's party at a bar, Daniel Minden (“Daniel”) was knocked airborne and run over by a vehicle driven by Curtis Lammert and later died from those injuries.^[1]  His children (“Minden”) brought claims against the bar.  Atain Specialty Insurance Co. (“Atain”), the bar's insurer, failed to participate in the mediation between the Mindens and the bar, which ultimately resulted in a settlement and consent judgment and an assignment of claims against Atain from the bar to the Mindens.^[2]  The Mindens brought suit against Atain in federal district court and on motions for summary judgment, succeeded on their equitable garnishment claim, but their vexatious refusal claim was rejected.^[3]  On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s judgment in a decision focusing heavily on the interpretation of the insurance policy between the bar and Atain.^[4]

State v. Amick

Opinion handed down June 16, 2015

Link to the Supreme Court of Missouri Opinion 

Michael Amick appealed a judgment of conviction for second-degree murder and second-degree arson.^[1]  The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed the judgment and remanded the case, holding the trial court violated Missouri Revised Statutes Section 494.485 by substituting a discharged alternate juror after the jury already began its deliberations.^[2]

Banks v. Slay

Opinion handed down June 19, 2015

Link to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion

        Banks v. Slay^[1] presents a case that may bring back haunting memories of one’s first-year civil procedure class.  The fact pattern in Banks presents a law-exam-worthy catch-all complete with default judgments, writs of mandamus, declaratory judgments, and questions of federal subject matter jurisdiction.  All of these issues presented under the guise of police misconduct make for an interesting and noteworthy decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Rosemann v. Sigillito

Opinion filed May 4, 2015

Link to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion

        In 2012, Phil Rosemann filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against Martin Sigillito alleging legal malpractice.^[1]  Rosemann had hired Sigillito to counsel him in foreign investments.^[2]  One of the investments failed and Rosemann brought suit, alleging Sigillito had failed to exercise “the reasonable degree of knowledge and skill that is ordinarily possessed and exercised by attorneys in the preparation of a Promissory Note.”^[3]  The district court granted summary judgment for Sigillito because Rosemann “failed to name an expert [in discovery] who would testify about the appropriate standard of care.”^[4] 

United States v. Beckman

Opinion handed down May 15, 2015

Link to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion

        In 2013, Paul Beckman pled guilty to possession of child pornography after having been previously convicted of the same offense in 2001.^[1]  The district court ordered Beckman to pay $9000 in restitution and sentenced him to 120 months in prison and a lifetime of supervised release.^[2]  On appeal, Beckman claimed the district court erred in: (1) denying his motion to suppress evidence relating to documents and files found on an external hard drive resulting from an illegal search; (2) denying his motion to suppress evidence in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41; and (3) ordering restitution in the amount of $9000.^[3]  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision.^[4]

St. Louis Effort for AIDS v. Huff

Opinion handed down April 10, 2015

Link to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion

             Following the passing of the controversial Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), the Missouri legislature passed the Health Insurance Marketplace Innovation Act (“HIMIA”), seeking to regulate certain aspects of health care exchanges within the state of Missouri.^[1] Acting under the authority of the ACA, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) promulgated regulations that conflicted with the Missouri laws pertaining to healthcare marked facilitators.^[2]  The petitioners, a group of healthcare-related organizations and businesses, challenged the HIMIA, seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the HIMIA that were contrary to federal law.^[3]  The district court granted the preliminary injunction and enjoined the HIMIA from being enforced in its entirety.^[4]

              The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding: (1) the petitioners were likely to succeed on their claims that three specific provisions of the HIMIA were preempted by federal regulation; and (2) the preempted specific provisions of the HIMIA were severable from the remainder of the Missouri law, resulting in a preliminary injunction only enjoining the State from enforcing the three challenged provisions, leaving the remainder of the HIMIA in effect.^[5]