If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
July 11, 2020

Table of Contents

Exide Technologies v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Arbitration & Mediation, Labor & Employment Law

United States v. Esquibel

Criminal Law

United States v. Freeman

Criminal Law

COVID-19 Updates: Law & Legal Resources Related to Coronavirus

Click here to remove Verdict from subsequent Justia newsletter(s).

New on Verdict

Legal Analysis and Commentary

A Modest Proposal: A Heartbeat Bill for Those Who Don’t Wear Masks

MARCI A. HAMILTON

verdict post

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton draws upon a strategy used by anti-abortion advocates in suggesting a way to encourage (or coerce) more people into wearing masks to avoid the spread of COVID-19. Hamilton proposes requiring persons who opt not to wear a mask in public (1) to watch, on a large screen, an adult's beating heart for 30 seconds, and (2) to be read a statement about how their decision unreasonably endangers others.

Read More

US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Opinions

Exide Technologies v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Docket: 19-2317

Opinion Date: July 10, 2020

Judge: Jane Louise Kelly

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Labor & Employment Law

This appeal stemmed from a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) dispute between the parties where an arbitrator resolved the dispute in favor of the union. The Eighth Circuit held that because the arbitrator was arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority, there is no basis for vacating the arbitrator's finding that Exide violated the CBA. The court also held that the district court correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction over Exide's claim that the arbitrator's decision that unilaterally changing Family Medical Leave Act leave administrators was a material, substantial and significant change in the employees' terms and conditions of employment in violation of Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act. Rather, Congress has empowered the NLRB to resolve unfair-labor-practice claims in the first instance. Furthermore, the cases cited by the parties do not expand the court's original jurisdiction.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

United States v. Esquibel

Docket: 19-3177

Opinion Date: July 10, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court did not err by applying a four-level enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) & cmt. n.14(c), and a two-level enhancement for recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person in the course of fleeing from a law enforcement officer under USSG 2A1.4 cmt. n.1. The court also held that the district court did not err in finding defendant's prior Iowa controlled substance conviction was an enhancing predicate.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

United States v. Freeman

Docket: 19-2055

Opinion Date: July 10, 2020

Judge: Lavenski R. Smith

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court applied the Supreme Court's analysis in Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 705 (1981), and Bailey v. United States, 568 U.S. 186, 200 (2013), holding that defendant's brief detention was permissible and that the police had valid justifications for the detention. In this case, the officers' brief detention of the vehicle's passengers and approach of the car were constitutionally permissible; during the approach, the officers developed probable cause to search the car when they smelled marijuana and saw defendant's furtive movements; and thus the brief seizure and subsequent search of the vehicle based on probable cause was constitutional.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

About Justia Opinion Summaries

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 68 different newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states.

Justia also provides weekly practice area newsletters in 63 different practice areas.

All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com.

You may freely redistribute this email in whole.

About Justia

Justia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers.

Justia

Contact Us| Privacy Policy

Unsubscribe From This Newsletter

or
unsubscribe from all Justia newsletters immediately here.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Justia

Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043