If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
February 2, 2021

Table of Contents

Carpenter v. Amos

Bankruptcy

United States v. Blanks

Criminal Law

Central Valley Ag Cooperative v. Leonard

ERISA

COVID-19 Updates: Law & Legal Resources Related to Coronavirus

Click here to remove Verdict from subsequent Justia newsletter(s).

New on Verdict

Legal Analysis and Commentary

Corporate Transitional Justice

LESLEY WEXLER, NICOLA SHARPE

verdict post

Illinois law professor Lesley M. Wexler and Nicola Sharpe discuss various corporate responses to the recent storming of Capitol Hill and consider whether such responses might constitute private transitional justice. Professors Wexler and Sharpe point out, however, that simply vocalizing a commitment to social justice, diversity, and inclusivity is not enough; corporations should diversify boards and leadership representation and take other quantifiable steps that transform corporate culture and processes.

Read More

US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Opinions

Carpenter v. Amos

Dockets: 20-6007, 20-6015

Opinion Date: February 1, 2021

Judge: Shodeen

Areas of Law: Bankruptcy

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Flesner Wentzel, debtor's ex-wife's attorney, and confirmation of debtor's Sixth Amendment Chapter 13 plan. On de novo review, the panel identified no error in the bankruptcy court's conclusion that the attorney fees imposed on debtor by the state court are domestic support obligations under the bankruptcy code and are therefore not dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(5). In this case, the bankruptcy court engaged in a specific and detailed analysis of the undisputed facts and legal authority. Therefore, confirmation of debtor's Sixth Amended Plan that provided for priority treatment of Flesner's attorney fee claims as domestic support obligations was appropriate.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

United States v. Blanks

Docket: 19-2042

Opinion Date: February 1, 2021

Judge: Roger Leland Wollman

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for three counts related to the receipt and possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2), (a)(5)(B), (b)(1), and (b)(2). The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for leave to file post-deadline pretrial motions in light of his knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to do so. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a limited number of child pornography images from the more than one thousand images seized from defendant's devices. The court noted that, although it might well have been a better practice to examine the images in question, the district court did not abuse its discretion by making its Federal Rule of Evidence 403 decision without having done so. In this case, the images were neither unfairly prejudicial nor needlessly cumulative.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Central Valley Ag Cooperative v. Leonard

Dockets: 19-3044, 20-1378

Opinion Date: February 1, 2021

Judge: Erickson

Areas of Law: ERISA

Central Valley filed suit against various defendants who either marketed or administered self-funded health care plans, alleging that defendants breached various fiduciary duties and engaged in various prohibited transactions in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants. In regard to the 2015 health care plan, the court held that because Central Valley made the final payment decisions, AMPS and TBG did not have discretion over their compensation and were not fiduciaries. In regard to the 2016 health care plan, the court held that because none of Central Valley's allegations pertain to CDS's fiduciary duty of making benefit determinations on hospital and facility claims, Central Valley’s fiduciary duty claim against CDS fails. Furthermore, TBG, AMPS, and CDS did not act with discretion with respect to compensation, and thus no defendant became a fiduciary. Finally, the court rejected Central Valley's prohibited transactions claim. The court also affirmed the district court's award of attorney fees, holding that the district court properly balanced the Westerhaus factors and did not abuse its discretion in awarding defendants attorney's fees.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

About Justia Opinion Summaries

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 68 different newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states.

Justia also provides weekly practice area newsletters in 63 different practice areas.

All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com.

You may freely redistribute this email in whole.

About Justia

Justia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers.

Justia

Contact Us| Privacy Policy

Unsubscribe From This Newsletter

or
unsubscribe from all Justia newsletters immediately here.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Justia

Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043