Latest 3 Cases: Lombardo v. City of St. Louis (Civil Rights), Jackson v. United States (Criminal Law), Joseph J. Henderson & Sons, Inc. v. ...

Even During a Pandemic, Fear-Mongering About the Debt Has Predictably Reared Its Ignorant Head

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why we should not be concerned about increasing the federal government’s debt, despite what some journalists are suggesting. Buchanan points out that sometimes—such as during a pandemic or other crisis—the federal government should borrow more to prevent a downward economic spiral.

Read More

Lombardo v. City of St. Louis

Docket: 19-1469

Opinion Date: April 20, 2020

Judge: Bobby E. Shepherd

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the magistrate judge's grant of summary judgment in favor of law enforcement officers and the City, in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by plaintiff after the death of her son. The court held that the officers' actions did not amount to constitutionally excessive force. In this case, the undisputed facts show that the officers discovered the son acting erratically, and even though the son was held in a secure cell, it was objectively reasonable for the officers to fear that he would intentionally or inadvertently physically harm himself. Furthermore, the son actively resisted the officers' attempts to subdue him, and officers held him in the prone position only until he stopped actively fighting against the restraints and the officers. Therefore, the court held that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's excessive force claim.

Jackson v. United States

Docket: 19-1131

Opinion Date: April 20, 2020

Judge: Lavenski R. Smith

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct petitioner's sentence. The court held that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing as to petitioner's claim that counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to conduct adequate pretrial investigations. In this case, petitioner failed to identify any specific witnesses or evidence that counsel failed to uncover. Furthermore, petitioner failed to show that counsel's representation prejudiced his case. The court also held that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing as to petitioner's claim that his new counsel was ineffective for failing to subpoena witnesses, for convincing petitioner not to testify, for failing to object to or appeal the district court's answer to a jury question, and for failing to object to the district court's designation of petitioner as a career offender.

Joseph J. Henderson & Sons, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Co.

Docket: 18-3341

Opinion Date: April 20, 2020

Judge: Roger Leland Wollman

Areas of Law: Insurance Law

After the City hired Henderson to design and install a bio-solids building, panels on the building's roof were damaged during a windstorm. Henderson filed a claim with Travelers, asserting that Travelers was required to cover the roof's damage under the City's builder's risk insurance policy with Travelers. The jury ultimately found in favor of Henderson, awarding damages and fees. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Travelers' motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that the faulty workmanship exclusion does not include an anticoncurrent-cause provision; the windstorm and faulty workmanship operated in tandem to cause the resulting damage, and thus the windstorm and the faulty workmanship were two independent cause that contributed to the loss; and thus a reasonable juror could have found that faulty workmanship was not the sole proximate cause of the loss. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of Travelers' motion for a new trial or remittitur, holding that the district court did not plainly err in instructing the jury on the issue of proximate cause and the total award was not so excessive as to shock the judicial conscience.