Latest 3 Cases: White v. United States (Civil Rights), United States v. Sterling (Criminal Law), Sysco Minnesota, Inc. v. Teamsters Local 120 ...

Disaster Relief to States and Cities Is Both Right and Good: Part 1 of 2

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

In this first of a series of columns about federal relief to state and local governments, UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan provides the economic background to explain how unprecedented these times are and argues that supporting cities and states is essential to surviving this crisis.

Read More

White v. United States

Docket: 19-1878

Opinion Date: May 13, 2020

Judge: Roger Leland Wollman

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

After an ATF agent shot and killed Myron Pollard during an undercover operation, Pollard's mother and personal representative of his estate filed suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and the agent under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The district court held in favor of the United States and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the agent. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment on the FTCA claim, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to draw a negative inference from deleted data against the United States. In this case, the district court's finding that the ATF did not act in bad faith in destroying the original records of the shooting is supported by evidence, and plaintiff proffered no evidence to support an inference that the original recordings were intentionally destroyed to suppress the truth or to contradict any of the government's evidence. The court also held that, in light of the facts, the district court properly determined that the agent reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to protect himself and the other agents from the vehicle and that he had acted reasonably by firing his service weapon. The court held that the FTCA judgment barred plaintiff's Bivens action and remanded to the district court with directions to vacate the judgment for the agent on the Bivens claim and to dismiss the claim.

United States v. Sterling

Docket: 19-1711

Opinion Date: May 13, 2020

Judge: James B. Loken

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

After the United States Probation Office petitioned the district court for modification of defendant's sentence to add three special conditions of supervised release, he appealed the grant of the petition. The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing defendant to proceed pro se at the modification hearing. The court affirmed the imposition of the mental health assessment condition and the search condition. However, the court vacated the financial disclosures condition as vague and overbroad. In this case, the government failed to tailor the proposed special condition to the employment circumstances that warranted modification of Standard Condition 5 and thus imposed an overbroad special condition that imposes a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary and is not the minimum extent necessary to protect the public.

Sysco Minnesota, Inc. v. Teamsters Local 120

Docket: 18-3491

Opinion Date: May 13, 2020

Judge: Grasz

Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law

Sysco Minnesota filed suit against Local 120 under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) for violating their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Eighth Circuit held that Local 120 waived its right to the CBA's prescribed non-judicial grievance procedures, including arbitration. In this case, Local 120's failure to seek relief under the CBA’s prescribed grievance procedures in a timely manner caused the parties to complete all discovery and litigate the merits of Sysco Minnesota's breach claim. Furthermore, the district court did not err in finding that Local 120 violated the picket line clause in the CBA; Local 120 waived the right to engage in sympathy strikes; and the court was not persuaded that Local 120 did not authorize, participate in, or ratify the picket line.