Roger Leland Wollman

In 2008, Penford Corporation suffered extensive flood damage to its Cedar Rapids manufacturing plant and sought coverage under an all-risk property insurance policy issued by National Union Fire Insurance Company and ACE American Insurance Company, which included a $300 million overall limit but also specific flood sublimits of $10 million for certain zones. The insurers maintained that those sublimits capped both property damage and related business interruption (time element) losses, while Penford argued the sublimits applied only to direct physical damage; Penford sued for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and bad faith. After trial, the district court granted the insurers judgment as a matter of law on all claims, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The appeals court held that the policy language, including the sublimits provision stating they applied “per occurrence” for all “coverages involved,” unambiguously extended the caps to business interruption losses, and that undisputed testimony from Penford’s own broker confirmed the parties’ shared understanding that the flood sublimits governed both categories of loss. Because no material factual dispute existed on the contract’s meaning, judgment as a matter of law was proper on the coverage and bad-faith claims alike.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

In 2004, Vickie Fields, a Miller County, Missouri jailer, was seriously injured when two inmates took her hostage after she escorted them unhandcuffed to the jail’s law library and opened the cell door; she later sued the county, its sheriff, and county commissioners under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that known jail conditions—including an interior door handle that inmates could grab, understaffing, and lax transfer procedures—violated her substantive due process rights. The district court denied qualified immunity to the individual defendants, but on interlocutory appeal the Eighth Circuit reversed that ruling. The court held that the defendants’ conduct amounted at most to gross negligence and did not demonstrate the deliberate indifference or criminal recklessness required to establish a substantive due process violation. Because no constitutional violation occurred, the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, and the case was remanded for further proceedings solely against Miller County.

civil rightsprocedure

K-V Pharmaceutical Company, based in Missouri, sued Spanish company J. Uriach & CIA for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets arising from a 1993 agreement to develop and sell an antifungal cream using KV's drug-delivery system, which Uriach allegedly misused after the contract's termination. The district court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction over Uriach, finding insufficient contacts with Missouri. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that Uriach's contract negotiations, amendments, choice-of-law provision, and ongoing confidentiality obligations established minimum contacts sufficient for jurisdiction under Missouri's long-arm statute and due process. The court also denied Uriach's alternative request to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, noting that public-interest factors favored Missouri as the forum, and remanded the failure-to-state-a-claim issue for further consideration.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between Triple H Debris Removal, Inc. and Companion Property and Casualty Insurance Company over the cancellation of two workers' compensation insurance policies due to an unpaid premium following an audit that increased the amount owed. After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of Companion on the ground that Triple H had not raised a bona fide dispute under the policy's dispute-resolution protocol and had not paid the premium. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the evidence permitted the jury to find both that Triple H failed to supply the detailed written explanation required to raise a bona fide dispute and that the local insurance agent was not Companion's agent for purposes of the policies at issue.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

The case involved Chad Miller, who was indicted for possessing a firearm while subject to a state court protective order against harassing or threatening an intimate partner, in violation of federal law under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(8) and 924(a)(2). Miller moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that his conviction should be vacated because he was unaware that his possession was prohibited and invoking a limited exception to the rule that ignorance of the law is not a defense. The district court denied the motion, accepted his guilty plea, and sentenced him to 69 months' imprisonment, which Miller appealed as unreasonable. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the protective order provided sufficient notice of the firearm prohibition and that the sentence was justified by the aggravated circumstances, including threats to a law enforcement officer.

criminal lawguns

In United States v. Butler, Kendrick Butler was convicted by a jury of six counts of bank fraud for recruiting individuals to cash counterfeit checks as part of a scheme run by others. The district court imposed an 80-month sentence after applying a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10) for device-making equipment and a three-level enhancement under § 3B1.1(b) for Butler's role as a manager or supervisor. The Eighth Circuit held that the device-making equipment enhancement was improper because the offense involved only transfers by paper instrument, which are excluded from the statutory definition of access devices. The court affirmed the aggravating role enhancement, concluding that the recruited individuals qualified as participants because they knew or were willfully blind to the fraud. The sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing without the erroneous enhancement.

criminal lawprocedure

In this diversity case, Paula Kingman sued Dillard's after a high-hanging apparel rack fell on her in a store, causing shoulder injuries that required multiple surgeries and left her with permanent pain and limited mobility; her husband Calvin, a quadriplegic, added a loss-of-consortium claim because she could no longer provide his daily care. The district court found Dillard's liable and awarded damages to both plaintiffs. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the award to Paula but reversed the award to Calvin. The court reasoned that Missouri law permits recovery on a consortium claim for loss of household services but does not extend to the costs of professional nursing or caregiving services for an invalid spouse, and it remanded for reconsideration of Calvin's claim under that standard.

torts & liability

The case involved Dale Thurman, a convicted felon, who was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after a search of a frame house on property he was associated with turned up firearms and ammunition. Thurman moved to suppress the evidence, contending that the search warrant lacked probable cause and failed to particularly describe the premises due to an address discrepancy between 1035 and 1025 Zeller Avenue. The district court denied the motion, a jury convicted Thurman, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that the warrant application established probable cause through an officer's observations linking Thurman to pistols at the frame house and that the warrant's description of the specific rural location and structure was sufficiently particular to satisfy the Fourth Amendment, or that officers acted in good faith reliance on the warrant.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

Tristan Bonn, the former Public Safety Auditor for the City of Omaha, was terminated after publishing a report criticizing the Omaha Police Department's traffic stop practices and related community relations issues. She sued the city and officials under Title VII, alleging retaliation for opposing discriminatory employment practices, and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming a violation of her First Amendment free speech rights, along with state-law claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the federal claims and remanded the state claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that Bonn spoke pursuant to her official duties rather than as a private citizen when publishing the report and commenting to the media, so her speech was not protected by the First Amendment under Garcetti v. Peay. The court also upheld dismissal of the Title VII claim without further elaboration in the opinion excerpt.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employment

The case involved Pamela Newberry, a former employee of Burlington Basket Company, who alleged that the company violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Iowa Civil Rights Act by terminating her employment because of her age. After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of Newberry, awarding her damages for emotional distress along with attorney’s fees. On appeal, Burlington Basket challenged the jury instructions regarding the standard of proof and the amount of attorney’s fees awarded. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that the jury instructions were proper under the Iowa Civil Rights Act and that the fee award did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved creditors' objection to the U.S. Trustee's appointment of Douglas Kelley as Chapter 11 trustee for the jointly administered bankruptcy estates of companies tied to Thomas Petters' alleged Ponzi scheme. Ritchie argued that Kelley's prior service as receiver created disqualifying conflicts of interest under 11 U.S.C. § 101(14) and sought expedited discovery to investigate those issues. The bankruptcy court overruled the objection, approved the appointment, and denied discovery; the district court affirmed those orders. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that no actual prejudice or disabling conflicts had materialized during the initial administrative phase of asset recovery and that the bankruptcy court acted within its discretion in denying discovery based on publicly available documents.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved Lyle Wilson's appeal of his convictions in the District of South Dakota on three drug-related charges: conspiracy to distribute cocaine, conspiracy to distribute marijuana, and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute on a specific date. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether the district court properly admitted evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) regarding Wilson shooting at a drug supplier and whether sufficient evidence supported the third conviction. The court affirmed the two conspiracy convictions, finding the evidence of Wilson's active participation in the drug-trafficking operation sufficient and the 404(b) evidence admissible. It vacated the possession conviction due to insufficient evidence linking Wilson to the June 9, 2007 incident but declined to remand for resentencing because the vacated count did not affect the concurrent sentences on the upheld convictions.

criminal law

The case involved chiropractor Douglas Dvorak, who was convicted after a jury trial on multiple counts of mail fraud, aggravated identity theft, and money laundering for submitting false Medicaid reimbursement claims to Iowa Medicaid Enterprise using the names and identification numbers of children he did not treat, then depositing and withdrawing the resulting checks. Dvorak appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for the money laundering convictions, the jury instructions on aggravated identity theft following the Supreme Court's Flores-Figueroa decision, and the district court's decision to impose consecutive sentences on two of the identity theft counts. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence supported the money laundering findings, that the instructions properly required proof of knowledge of the victims' identities, and that the district court adequately explained the consecutive sentences by referencing the seriousness of the offenses under the relevant Sentencing Guidelines. The court also upheld the overall sentence and loss calculations.

criminal lawhealthcare

The case involved Nancy Wetherill, a dual-status National Guard technician, who sued the Secretary of the Army and related defendants under Title VII alleging that revocation of her military retirement waiver constituted sex and/or national origin discrimination, which forced her to leave her civilian position early and lose full pension benefits. The district court dismissed the action as non-justiciable under the Feres doctrine barring judicial review of military decisions. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that Feres applies to dual-status technicians despite a 1997 statutory amendment and that Wetherill's claims arose out of military decisions incident to service because the waiver revocation related exclusively to her military position.

civil rightslabor & employment

Brian Jeffries pleaded guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact with a child in violation of federal statutes. Following a prior remand for resentencing due to insufficient evidence of a predicate conviction, the district court imposed a 360-month term, emphasizing the need to protect the public from Jeffries' pattern of sexual abuse toward minors. Jeffries appealed, contending the sentence was unreasonable because the government could seek civil commitment under the Adam Walsh Act if he remained sexually dangerous after release. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the sentence fell within the properly calculated guidelines range and that the civil commitment provisions serve as a complement to, rather than a substitute for, a court's discretion to weigh public protection under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when selecting a term of imprisonment.

criminal law

The case involved Edgar Bracamontes, who pled guilty to cocaine possession with intent to distribute after a traffic stop led to a vehicle search that uncovered drugs and cash, but he preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The district court had denied the motion, finding that the stop was validly extended. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial, concluding that inconsistencies between Bracamontes's and his wife's accounts of their travel provided reasonable suspicion to prolong the detention beyond the initial traffic violation and to deploy a drug-detection dog. The court held that this did not violate the Fourth Amendment under the totality of the circumstances.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Esteban Ruiz-Chavez, who was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of federal law. Ruiz appealed his conviction, arguing that the district court erred by admitting testimony about his 2006 arrest, which included details of a stolen firearm, forfeited cash from drug sales, and methamphetamine found with an associate. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction, concluding that the evidence was intrinsic to the charged conspiracy because it occurred during the conspiracy period, provided context for the ongoing drug distribution activities, and helped establish Ruiz's involvement. The court reasoned that the testimony completed the narrative of the offense, was relevant to rebut the defense that Ruiz was not part of the operation, and was not barred by rules on unfair prejudice or prior bad acts evidence.

criminal law

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Daniel Horn, who sustained a back injury while working as a welder at Riverside Manufacturing in 2000 after bending over on the job. Horn had prior back injuries, including one in 1997 at Dakota Pork that resulted in a five percent impairment rating and settlement, and he sought permanent disability benefits in addition to short-term compensation. The South Dakota Department of Labor awarded only temporary benefits, finding insufficient evidence that the injury caused permanent disability, and the circuit court affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Horn did not establish the degenerative disc condition as a major contributing cause of his disability under the applicable statute or meet the requirements for a claim based on aggravation of a preexisting work-related injury. The court noted that medical testimony linked his ongoing issues more to age-related changes and ankylosing spondylitis than to the work incidents.

labor & employment

The case involved Robert Reutter's appeal from his conviction on two counts of aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine and one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine in Minnehaha County, South Dakota. Reutter challenged the indictment's scope, the admission of evidence regarding his California activities, the sufficiency of corroboration for accomplice testimony, and alleged state intimidation of witnesses. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the indictment properly focused on in-state conduct while allowing relevant evidence, that accomplice testimony met statutory corroboration requirements, and that no prejudice was shown from the other claims.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a medical malpractice lawsuit brought by parents against an obstetrician and his practice after their viable fetus died following two amniocentesis procedures performed to assess lung maturity ahead of a planned repeat cesarean delivery. The parents alleged negligence in the handling of a 'bloody tap' during the second procedure and failure to obtain informed consent by not disclosing alternative approaches or risks. The trial court dismissed the wrongful death claim before trial, and a jury later returned a verdict for the defendants on the parents' separate damages claims. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions on informed consent, its evidentiary rulings, or its decision not to send a certain exhibit to the jury room. The court dismissed the wrongful death appeal as moot.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure