Latest 3 Cases: United States v. Perkins (Criminal Law), Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corp. v. U.S. Department of Labor Administrative ...

Should Animals Be Allowed to Sue?

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on case in which Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) brought a civil damages suit on behalf of an abused horse, now named Justice, against the horse’s former owner. Colb dismantles three arguments critics raise in opposition to recognizing abused animals as plaintiffs in lawsuits such as this one.

Read More

United States v. Perkins

Docket: 18-2872

Opinion Date: January 30, 2020

Judge: Grasz

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for crossing a state line with intent to engage in a sexual act with a minor under the age of twelve. The court held that a defendant has the requisite intent under 18 U.S.C. 2241(c) if engaging in sexual activity with the minor was one of the purposes motivating the defendant to cross state lines, even if the sexual activity is not the sole or dominant purpose for the trip, so long as it is more than incidental. In this case, the admission of text messages defendant had made to a friend allowed a reasonable factfinder to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of crossing state lines with the intent to engage in sexual activities with the victim, a child less than twelve years of age. The court explained that the sexual encounters with the child were a motivating factor for defendant's trips across state lines and were not merely incidental.

Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corp. v. U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board

Docket: 18-2888

Opinion Date: January 30, 2020

Judge: James B. Loken

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law

The Eighth Circuit granted a petition for review of the ARB's final decision ruling that CP violated the whistleblower retaliation provisions of the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) when it suspended a locomotive engineer for his untimely reporting of a "work-related personal injury" or a "hazardous safety or security condition." The court agreed with CP's argument that the ARB's analysis of the contributing factor element of the employee's prima facie case used a legal causation standard contrary to controlling Eighth Circuit precedents. The court held that the ARB's reasoning was both contrary to the court's governing precedents and fatally flawed; the FRSA prohibits a rail carrier from discriminating against an employee for engaging in protected activity; the employee does not have to conclusively prove retaliatory motive but must show more than temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse action; and the court expressly rejected the contention that, when an employer learns about an employee's conduct warranting discipline in a protected injury report, the report and the discipline are "inextricably intertwined" and this factual connection is "sufficient to establish the contributing-factor element of his prima facie case." Because the ARB did not attempt to apply the appropriate Eighth Circuit legal standard, the court remanded to the ARB with instructions.

Westfield Insurance Co. v. Miller Architects & Builders

Docket: 18-2970

Opinion Date: January 30, 2020

Judge: Stras

Areas of Law: Insurance Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that Westfield had a duty to defend its insurer, Miller Architects and Builders, because the claims against Miller in the underlying action did not "clearly" fall outside the scope of coverage. The court held that the alleged damages from the leaky roof were arguably within the policy's scope and there are no clearly applicable exclusions.