Dean Whipple

The case involved a breach of contract dispute between Crane Construction Co. and JKC Construction, Inc., arising from two subcontracts for renovations at Kohl’s stores, with each party alleging the other had failed to perform. Plaintiff originally sued in Missouri state court, Defendant removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, and Plaintiff moved to remand based on forum selection clauses in the contracts. The court granted the motion to remand, holding that the clauses were valid even though they appeared in boilerplate language that the parties had not specifically negotiated. The court further concluded that the clauses’ language—requiring that jurisdiction and venue be solely and exclusively in a court located in Andrew County, Missouri, and no other—constituted a clear and unequivocal waiver of the right to remove the action to federal court.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In United States v. Lopez-Lopez, the district court considered a defendant's motion to suppress evidence and statements obtained during a consent search of his residence after police executed a search warrant and took him into custody. Officers obtained the defendant's signed consent by stating they sought only identification documents, while actually intending to search for methamphetamine based on information from another individual, and they did not disclose that intent or the tip. The court concluded that the consent was not voluntary due to the officers' deception and that the subsequent search exceeded the scope of any consent given, violating the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the court granted the motion to suppress the methamphetamine and related evidence found during the search.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a challenge to a Missouri Department of Corrections policy that prohibited transporting pregnant inmates off-site for elective, nontherapeutic abortions. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, ruling that the policy violated the inmates' rights under the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments. The decision rested on the finding that the policy unduly burdened the constitutional right to abortion without sufficient penological justification, as analyzed under the Turner factors, and that denying such procedures constituted deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.

abortioncivil rightscriminal lawhealthcare

The case involved a pregnant inmate over age 18 at a Missouri women's correctional facility who was approximately 16-17 weeks pregnant and sought an abortion, which was unavailable at the facility; prison officials refused to provide transportation under a policy barring transport for non-medically necessary abortions. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, ordering defendants to transport her to a St. Louis clinic for the procedure, counseling, and related services. The core reasoning was that an inmate's Fourteenth Amendment right to reproductive choice survives incarceration and requires justification by legitimate penological interests, which the defendants' cited concerns over security and cost did not meet, while denial of access would cause irreparable harm; the court also rejected the motion to stay the injunction pending appeal.

abortioncriminal lawcivil rights

The case involved the United States suing defendants Bobby and Jewel Veal under the Fair Housing Act for engaging in a pattern or practice of housing discrimination on the basis of sex. After the Veals failed to comply with discovery orders, the court entered a default judgment on liability; a jury then awarded over $1.1 million in compensatory and punitive damages to eleven aggrieved women. The defendants moved for a new trial, relief from judgment, or remittitur, arguing attorney misconduct caused the default, improper liability findings, and excessive punitive damages. The court denied all motions, holding that parties bear responsibility for their counsel's actions in discovery violations, that the evidence supported liability for both defendants, and that the damages award was not excessive under applicable standards. The ruling also rejected challenges to the government's standing to sue under the Act.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved the EEOC suing Consolidated Freightways on behalf of twelve African-American former employees, alleging racial harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. After the defendant filed for bankruptcy, which triggered an automatic stay of proceedings, the EEOC argued the stay did not apply, while the defendant sought a discretionary stay under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). The court held that the police or regulatory power exception under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4) exempted the EEOC's enforcement action from the automatic stay. It further denied the discretionary stay after analyzing the injunction factors, finding the defendant had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, that litigation costs did not constitute irreparable harm, and that the balance of hardships and public interest factors were inconclusive or neutral.

labor & employmentcivil rightsbusiness & regulatory

In United States v. Zubeck, the district court considered the government's motion to revoke the defendant's supervised release following her prior conviction for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. The government relied on a positive methamphetamine result from a PharmChem sweat patch worn by the defendant, which she challenged as unreliable due to possible external contamination, improper application by the technician, and inconsistencies in the lab report. After reviewing expert testimony and evidence from hearings, the court determined that the sweat patch was reliable, the defendant's contamination theory lacked scientific support for real-world conditions, and the test results established by a preponderance of the evidence that she had used illegal drugs in violation of her release conditions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves owner-operators who lease trucks and provide driving services to motor carrier New Prime, alleging that the carrier's standard lease agreements violate federal Truth-In-Leasing regulations at 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 regarding charge-backs, products/equipment, and escrow funds. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and damages under 49 U.S.C. § 14704(a). Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Alexander v. Sandoval barred private enforcement of the regulations. The court denied the motion, holding that the statute's text and legislative history expressly create a private right of action for violations of the leasing rules, unlike the disparate-impact regulations at issue in Sandoval.

business & regulatory

In Parent v. Halter, plaintiff Kathleen Parent appealed the denial of her applications for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income, alleging disability beginning in 1995 due to rapid heartbeat, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and morbid obesity. The district court reviewed the administrative law judge's decision under the substantial evidence standard on the record as a whole and affirmed the Commissioner's denial of benefits. The court reasoned that the obesity listing under Section 9.09 had been deleted with retroactive effect, Parent's subjective complaints of pain were properly discounted due to inconsistencies with the medical record, and the residual functional capacity assessment was supported by objective medical evidence in accordance with regulations and Eighth Circuit precedent.

healthcarefederal power

The case involved landowners suing a pipeline operator for alleged damages from stray electricity escaping from underground pipelines' cathodic protection systems, which plaintiffs claimed exceeded the scope of old pipeline easements and caused property damage, livestock issues, and personal injuries. On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and to strike under Rule 12(f), the court granted dismissal of the strict liability, breach of contract, and ejectment counts, finding they failed to state recognized claims under Missouri law. The court also struck the personal injury and permanent injunction counts as redundant of the negligence and trespass claims already asserted. It denied dismissal of the trespass counts, allowing those to proceed. The decision rested on whether the pleaded theories were viable, duplicative of other counts, or supported by the alleged facts.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a high school senior who was removed from her school's softball team after missing a game, leading to claims that the school district and coach violated her Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights by expelling her without prior notice, evidence explanation, or opportunity to respond, along with related tort claims including defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and prima facie tort. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all constitutional and tort claims and denied the plaintiff's request for a de novo hearing. The core reasoning was that participation in extracurricular activities like sports does not constitute a protected property or liberty interest under the Constitution, so no due process protections applied, and the remaining state-law tort claims failed to state viable causes of action. The plaintiff had already graduated and was attending college on softball scholarships at the time of the ruling.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

In Reach v. AlliedSignal, Inc., plaintiff Charles Reach sued his former employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Missouri Human Rights Act after his position was eliminated during a 1997 reduction in force triggered by federal budget cuts at a Department of Energy facility. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all claims. The court found that Reach had not shown he was terminated because of his disability or in retaliation for taking FMLA leave, noting that his supervisor had accommodated his medical needs, the RIF was a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason supported by undisputed evidence of widespread layoffs, and Reach offered no evidence of pretext or causal connection. The decision rested on the absence of facts creating a triable issue under the applicable legal standards for discrimination and retaliation.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In United States v. Mack, the defendant faced federal charges for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, distribution of crack cocaine, and possession of firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking. He moved to suppress evidence seized during execution of a no-knock search warrant at his residence, arguing that the warrant lacked reasonable suspicion to dispense with the knock-and-announce requirement. The district court denied the motion, adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The court concluded that the no-knock provision was supported by reasonable suspicion of danger based on recent observations of assault weapons at the home, DRAGNET reports identifying it as a drug house, and prior convictions of residents for weapons and assault offenses; it further held that exigent circumstances independently justified the no-knock entry even absent the warrant provision.

criminal lawprocedureguns

This case involves a claim by JoNell Lawyer against Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company for denial of long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed employee benefit plan sponsored by Wal-Mart. Lawyer had received benefits for about a year but was denied continuation under the "any occupation" definition of disability after her treating physician provided incomplete information and an ALJ denied her Social Security claim. The court granted summary judgment to Hartford Life and denied Lawyer's motion, applying an abuse of discretion standard because the plan granted Hartford full authority to decide eligibility. The denial was upheld as reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, including medical assessments, Hartford's internal reviews, and the prior Social Security ruling.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

In Nelson v. American Home Products Corp., plaintiffs Rodger and Lou Nelson sued the manufacturers of Cordarone (amiodarone), a prescription heart medication, claiming it caused Nelson's loss of eyesight due to optic neuropathy after he took the drug for ventricular arrhythmia. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs had no admissible evidence to prove causation. The court granted the motion after reviewing the record, holding that the plaintiffs' expert opinions failed to satisfy the reliability requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 under Daubert because they rested on untested hypotheses rather than scientifically valid principles. Without admissible expert testimony on causation, the plaintiffs could not raise a genuine issue of material fact, so the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

torts & liability

This case concerns the Kansas City Missouri School District's request for a court order declaring the Missouri State Board of Education's decision to designate the district as unaccredited void, on the grounds that it would impair the district's ability to comply with long-standing federal desegregation decrees. The court denied the motion to rejoin former state defendants and refused to void the accreditation decision. It held that constitutional standards for desegregated education do not conflict with state standards for quality education. The district has complied in good faith with the court's desegregation orders since 1984 and remains in compliance with the Constitution, and the loss of accreditation would not significantly interfere with continued desegregation efforts.

civil rightsfederal power

The case involved claims under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) against Liberty Hospital for allegedly failing to screen and stabilize a pregnant diabetic patient, resulting in severe brain damage to her newborn daughter. After the district court denied the hospital's motion to dismiss based on Missouri sovereign immunity, finding that EMTALA preempted the state immunity statute, the hospital appealed and moved to stay all proceedings. The court granted the stay of the entire multi-defendant case, holding that the notice of appeal divested it of jurisdiction over appealed issues and that the appeal was not utterly lacking in merit because the interaction between EMTALA damages provisions and state sovereign immunity raised debatable questions of law.

healthcareprocedurefederal powertorts & liability

Michael Owsley, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in Missouri state court, filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 alleging eight constitutional violations during his trial and conviction. The district court denied the petition along with related motions for further mental evaluations and an evidentiary hearing, holding that several claims were procedurally defaulted under state rules and that the remaining claims lacked merit. The court presumed the state court's factual findings to be correct because Owsley failed to rebut them with clear and convincing evidence, found that trial counsel's decisions not to pursue certain investigations were reasonable and caused no prejudice, and concluded that Owsley had not shown ineffective assistance of counsel or other constitutional errors warranting relief.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

In Baker v. Stone County, Mo., current and former sheriffs deputies, dispatchers, and jailers sued the Stone County Commission, county officials, and sheriffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime compensation. After conducting a three-day bench trial, the district court found that the defendants had violated the plaintiffs' FLSA rights. The ruling rested on the court's factual findings about the employees' work hours, wages, compensatory time accruals, and the county's payroll practices that failed to properly account for and pay overtime as required by federal law.

labor & employment

The case involved plaintiff Joyce Tovey suing her employer and its health insurer in Missouri state court for negligent misrepresentation and conversion after she was denied coverage under a group health plan despite paying premiums and receiving assurances of enrollment. Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting ERISA preemption, prompting Tovey's motion to remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and their motion to dismiss. The court first addressed the remand motion, explaining the distinction between ordinary preemption under ERISA § 514 (a federal defense) and complete preemption under ERISA § 502 (which can create federal jurisdiction by recharacterizing state claims as federal ones), and noted confusion in Eighth Circuit precedent on these issues. It determined that jurisdiction turns on whether the claims are completely preempted, requiring analysis of whether they relate to an ERISA plan in a way that displaces state law entirely, independent of any defense on the merits.

healthcareproceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory