Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a resident of St. Louis County, Missouri, sued Casino Queen, operator of a gambling and hotel establishment in St. Louis County, Illinois, in Missouri state court based on theories of negligence and premise liability. The court reversed the district court's order dismissing the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that because it was foreseeable that Casino Queen's actions could have consequences felt in Missouri, jurisdiction was authorized under Missouri's long-arm statute. The court also held that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Casino Queen comported with the requirements of due process. View "Myers v. Casino Queen, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the husband and uncle of decedent, filed suit against defendants alleging state law tort claims and violations of decedent's federal constitutional rights. The court held that the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' malpractice claim for failure to comply with Minnesota Statutes section 145.682 and that the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion to extend deadlines to serve expert affidavits. The court also held that the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2401(b), claim for lack of jurisdiction and that plaintiffs have not alleged error in the district court's determinations in regards to the dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. 1983 cause of action. The court affirmed the district court's order dismissing the Bivens action against Federal defendants and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the equal protection claim. Finally, the court rejected challenges to discovery and pretrial rulings. View "Flores, et al. v. United States, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, cattle producers, appealed the district court's dismissal of their Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1), complaint, alleging that a government employee negligently caused illness and death within their cattle herd by mandating a toxic plant mixture on pasture land enrolled in a conservation program. The district court held that the allegations of negligence involved the employee's exercise of protected discretion and therefore fell within the discretionary function exception to the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity. The court held that the employee's selection of a seeding plan was discretionary but that it was not the type of discretionary action Congress intended to shield from suit. View "Herden, et al. v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought this action against defendants, social service employees, alleging that they violated 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law by recommending that custody of their son be granted to his grandparents. According to plaintiffs, this recommendation resulted in the untimely death of their son. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the state employees after concluding that they were entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims and official immunity on the state claims. View "Hutson, et al. v. Walker, et al." on Justia Law

Southeast Technical Institute (STI) in South Dakota is a public post-secondary technical school funded by the State through Sioux Falls School District No. 49-5 and governed by the Sioux Falls School Board. STI terminated Registrar Matt Onnen for awarding degrees to students who had not earned them, not awarding degrees when students had earned them, and failing to verify students for graduation. Meanwhile, Onnen filed a qui tam complaint against the school district, its superintendent, and the school board members, alleging that Defendants violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by knowingly submitting false or fraudulent claims to the federal government for student grants and guaranteed loans. Onnen did not sue STI or any STI employee. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the district court did not err in concluding Onnen's affidavit was insufficient to prove that any defendant committed a knowing violation of the FCA. Therefore, summary judgment was appropriate. View "United States ex rel. Onnen v. Sioux Falls Indep. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Perks applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. An ALJ denied Perks's application. On appeal to the appeals council, Perks submitted additional evidence. The appeals council noted the receipt of the additional evidence but denied further review of Perks's claim. The district court affirmed. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding that Perks was not disabled; and (2) the additional evidence submitted to the appeals council did not undermine the ALJ's determination, as the ALJ would not have reached a different result with the additional evidence and the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

Rinchem Company, Inc. fired Jeffrey Sherman after Sherman alleged lied in the course of Rinchem's investigation of complaints about his behavior. Sherman disputed Richem's allegation and contended that Rinchem's accusation defamed him and compelled him to reveal to prospective employers that he had been fired for lying. The district court granted summary judgment to Rinchem on Sherman's defamation claim. Sherman appealed, arguing that the district court (1) should have granted his motion for summary judgment as a sanction for spoliation of evidence, or, in the alternative, an adverse-inference instruction; and (2) erred in granting summary judgment on his defamation claim. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) federal law applies to the imposition of sanctions for the spoliation of evidence, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a sanction for the spoliation of evidence, as Sherman conceded that Richem did not act in bad faith; and (2) the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Sherman's spoliation of evidence claim, as Rinchem was entitled to qualified privilege that defeated the claim.

Plaintiff was the president and owner of Company. Plaintiff and Company were sued by an employee for sexual harassment, among other claims. Plaintiff retained Law Firm to represent him and Company. The district court entered judgment against Company. The court later granted Company's motion for a new trial, and the parties subsequently settled. Plaintiff was the personal guarantor on the loans and credit lines provided by lenders to Company. After the original jury verdict, banks and lenders refused to continue extending credit to Plaintiff. As a result, Plaintiff's real estate holdings crumbled, causing Plaintiff to lose dozens of commercial and residential properties. Plainiff then sued the attorney who acted as lead defense counsel and Law Firm (collectively, Appellees), contending that Appellees committed a series of negligent errors during their representation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees and dismissed Plaintiff's claims for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, holding that Plaintiff failed to show that his loss of net worth was proximately caused by the actions of Appellees.

Approximately one month after Dr. Richard Briggs prescribed sixteen-year-old Peter Schilf Cymbalta for his depression, Peter committed suicide. The Cymbalta literature did not include an FDA-approved black box warning stating that Cymbalta could induce suicidality in children diagnosed with depression. Peter's parents (Appellants) sued Eli Lilly & Company and Quintiles Transnational Corporation ("Lilly"), alleging that Lilly's failure to warn and deceit caused the death of Peter. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Lilly. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) there were genuine issues of material fact whether Dr. Briggs knew the suicide-related information that an adequate warning would have contained; and (2) there were genuine issues of material fact whether an adequate warning would have changed Dr. Briggs' decision to prescribe Cymbalta to Peter.

Plaintiff Marnita Goddard was injured while riding on a trolley operated by the city of Deadwood, South Dakota. Invoking diversity jurisdiction, Goddard sued the city for negligence and the South Dakota Public Assurance Alliance (SDPAA) for uninsured motorist coverage. After Goddard settled with the city, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of SDPAA, concluding that Goddard was not covered under the uninsured motorist provision in the city's agreement with SDPAA. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Goddard had not shown she was entitled to coverage under the uninsured motorist provision of the SDPAA agreement.