Latest 4 Cases: Cook v. George's, Inc. (Civil Rights), United States v. Pacheco-Poo (Criminal Law), State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. ...

Can A City Refuse Land-Use Permits Because it Doesn’t Like the Federal Policies the Property Will be Used to Implement?

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains why a local government cannot constitutionally create policy discriminating against entities that do business with the feds. Specifically, Amar discusses a situation in which the city of Farland, California, is trying to prevent a privately operated state prison facility located in that city from contracting with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Read More

Cook v. George's, Inc.

Docket: 18-3294

Opinion Date: March 11, 2020

Judge: Melloy

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's action alleging a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court held that the district court erred by dismissing plaintiff's claim where plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to state a claim based on the statutory elements of the ADA. In this case, plaintiff has plausibly alleged that defendant refused to consider rehiring him because of his disability. The court also held that plaintiff's request for leave to amend was not futile and should have been granted.

United States v. Pacheco-Poo

Docket: 19-1357

Opinion Date: March 11, 2020

Judge: William Duane Benton

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Immigration Law

After the United States simultaneously prosecuted and removed defendant, he sought to dismiss the indictment. Defendant argued that the Executive Branch violated his rights under the Bail Reform Act (BRA) and the Constitution by simultaneously proceeding with prosecution and removal. The Eighth Circuit held that the BRA and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) co-exist, and that Subsection 3142(d) of the BRA does not conflict with removal under the INA. The court explained that the subsection regulates a "judicial officer," not an Executive Branch official, like an ICE agent; it requires the judicial officer to provide notice and ten-day detention, so immigration officials may detain a non-citizen defendant who poses a risk of flight or danger, but does not mandate that immigration officials detain then and only then; and, if immigration officials do detain then, the subsection does not state that the judicial officer or prosecution must dismiss criminal charges. Furthermore, if the immigration official does not detain within ten days, the non-citizen defendant shall be treated in accordance with the other provisions. The other provisions of the BRA do no preclude removal under the INA. The court rejected defendant's remaining arguments to the contrary.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Merrill

Docket: 18-3683

Opinion Date: March 11, 2020

Judge: William Duane Benton

Areas of Law: Insurance Law

After a car accident killed the insured, her mother, and her son, the trustee sought underinsured motorist coverage for the son, who was not named as an insured on the policy. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings to State Farm. The Eighth Circuit had jurisdiction over the appeal because the notice of appeal designated the correct judgment and the parties have addressed the merits of the judgment on the pleadings in their brief. On de novo review, the court held that the son was an insured on the mother's policy and thus was ineligible for excess insurance protection under the insured's policy.

Farkas v. Addition Manufacturing Technologies, LLC

Docket: 19-1068

Opinion Date: March 11, 2020

Judge: Lavenski R. Smith

Areas of Law: Personal Injury, Products Liability

After plaintiff's fingers were severely injured by a machine that uses a hydraulic clamp to crimp metal tubes, he filed suit against Addition, the machine designer's successor. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Addition, holding that plaintiff failed to provide facts showing that the machine was inherently dangerous or improperly guarded at the time it entered the stream of commerce. Therefore, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to establish a material issue of fact as to his strict liability claims. In regard to his products liability claims, the court held that plaintiff failed to offer evidence that the danger of a tube forming machine to the user's hand was anything but "open, obvious, and apparent." Therefore, the defect was not latent under Missouri case law, and thus not a material issue of fact regarding his negligence claim.