Latest 2 Cases: Perficient, Inc. v. Munley (Contracts), United States v. Ralston (Criminal Law)

Trump Swings His Wrecking Ball at Social Security

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

Neil H. Buchanan—UF law professor and economist—dispels some common misunderstandings about the future of Social Security but explains why President Trump’s recent comments are cause for concern. Buchanan explains why, contrary to claims by reporters and politicians, Social Security is not at the brink of insolvency, but points out that if Trump were to permanently eliminate payroll taxes, that would doom the program on which tens of millions of retirees depend.

Read More

Perficient, Inc. v. Munley

Docket: 19-2951

Opinion Date: September 3, 2020

Judge: James B. Loken

Areas of Law: Contracts, Labor & Employment Law

In 2019, Perficient filed suit against its former employee and his new employer, Spaulding, alleging claims including breach of contract and violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and the Missouri Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The district court ruled in favor of Perficient, concluding that the employee violated the covenant-not-to-compete provision in his employment contract. The district court then granted permanent injunctive relief of short duration. The employee and Spaulding timely filed this interlocutory appeal but did not seek a stay of the district court’s order pending appeal. The injunction expired in May 2020 on its own, with the appeal pending and further proceedings stayed in the district court. The Eighth Circuit held that the district court's injunction has become moot and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. Furthermore, none of the traditional exceptions to mootness apply. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal.

United States v. Ralston

Docket: 19-1252

Opinion Date: September 3, 2020

Judge: Lavenski R. Smith

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence for sexually abusing a minor on a United States military installation and transporting an individual across state lines to engage in sexual activity. The court rejected defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct where the cumulative effect of the alleged prosecutorial misdeeds did not violate defendant's right to a fair trial; the government presented testimony from 16 witnesses as well as other evidence against defendant; the district court provided curative instructions to the jury; and defendant's arguments simply do not establish the kind of cumulative and pervasive misconduct that has warranted reversal in other cases. The court also held that defendant waived his challenge as to one witness's unavailability and the district court did not plainly err in admitting her prior testimony; the district court did not plainly err by not requiring defendant's witness to testify; the district court did not abuse its discretion, much less plainly err, in allowing defendant's ex-wife to testify as to out-of-court statements made to her by their housekeepers when the couple lived in India; and the court declined to consider defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.